Madras High Court’s Insightful Remarks on Sanatana Dharma
In a recent hearing, the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice N Seshasayee, delved deep into the ongoing debates surrounding Sanatana Dharma. The court’s remarks come at a time when the topic has been a focal point of discussions, especially after comments made by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, who controversially compared Sanatana Dharma to diseases like “dengue and malaria”, sparking a significant political uproar.
Justice Seshasayee, during the hearing, emphasized the true essence of Sanatana Dharma. Contrary to some misconceptions, Sanatana Dharma is a comprehensive set of eternal duties. These duties encompass a wide range of responsibilities, from allegiance to the nation and the monarch to reverence for one’s parents, teachers, and a commitment to the welfare of the underprivileged.
The court was addressing a petition initiated by an individual named Elangovan. The petitioner challenged a directive from a local government Arts College that encouraged students to express their views on the topic ‘Opposition to Sanathana’. This directive was issued in commemoration of the birth anniversary of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK party founder, CN Annadurai.
Justice Seshasayee expressed genuine concern over the prevalent and often raucous debates that have clouded the true nature of Sanatana Dharma. He highlighted a growing misconception that wrongly associates Sanatana Dharma exclusively with casteism and untouchability. The judge firmly refuted this notion, stating,
“Untouchability, in a nation of equals, is intolerable.”
He further reinforced that even if some interpretations of Sanatana Dharma might seem to endorse untouchability, it has no place in modern society, especially since Article 17 of the Indian Constitution has unequivocally abolished it.
Furthermore, Justice Seshasayee underscored the importance of responsible free speech, especially in matters of faith and religion. He cautioned against the potential pitfalls of free speech morphing into hate speech.
“Every religion is rooted in faith, which can sometimes encompass elements of irrationality,”
he remarked. Therefore, when discussing religious matters, it’s crucial to ensure that the discourse remains respectful and doesn’t harm anyone’s sentiments. In essence, free speech should never be a vehicle for hate speech.
In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s observations serve as a timely reminder of the core values of Sanatana Dharma and the importance of responsible discourse in a diverse and democratic nation like India.
