The Karnataka High Court, on Friday(June 21), temporarily halted criminal proceedings against three organizers of a Chennai event where controversial remarks on Sanatana Dharma were made by DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin. Justice Krishna S Dixit’s decision offers interim relief until the court hears the organizers’ petition to dismiss the case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!![[Sanatana Dharma Remarks] Karnataka HC Stays Criminal Proceedings Against Chennai Event Organisers Amid Religious Speech Controversy](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/barandbench_2020-06_7bf60ef0-f486-4036-b7ec-84b9f2c3c0e2_Karnataka_HC.webp?resize=820%2C461&ssl=1)
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Friday(21st June) stayed the criminal proceedings against three organizers of a meeting held in Chennai in September 2023. This event stirred considerable controversy after DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin called for the “eradication” of Sanatana Dharma during his speech.
Justice Krishna S Dixit, presiding over the case, stayed all criminal proceedings against the organizers until the next hearing of a petition they filed to quash the criminal case registered last year. The decision provides temporary relief to the organizers, pending further judicial review.
The judge, however, did not shy away from expressing his concern over the reported contents of Stalin’s controversial speech. Emphasizing the importance of respecting all religions,
Justice Dixit remarked-
“Consider the statement and the manner in which the allegations were presented. While we may hold differing views on specific beliefs, religions, or scriptures, disparaging them is another matter altogether.”
This statement highlights the judiciary’s stance on maintaining religious harmony and discouraging derogatory remarks against any faith.
Justice Dixit further stressed the need for public figures to exercise caution in their statements. He added that people, especially those in influential positions, should avoid making derogatory comments.
“People should exercise caution in their speech and refrain from making derogatory remarks, particularly when they hold positions of public influence.”
-he asserted.
The meeting in question was organized by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association in September 2023. During this event, Udhayanidhi Stalin made a speech in which he reportedly stated-
“We must eradicate Sanatana Dharma, much like how we eliminate dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or coronavirus.”
This analogy sparked widespread criticism and led to multiple hate speech cases being filed against him across the country.
ALSO READ: Sanatana Dharma Remark | “You Abused Rights”: Supreme Court Slams Udhayanidhi Stalin
Currently, Stalin is facing several hate speech cases for his comments. A petition to consolidate all the first information reports (FIRs) registered against him on this issue is pending before the Supreme Court. This move aims to streamline the legal process and address the matter comprehensively at the highest judicial level.
The Karnataka High Court’s stay on the criminal proceedings against the organizers underscores the judicial scrutiny and the complex interplay between free speech and religious sentiments in India. As the case progresses, it will be closely watched for its implications on similar instances of controversial speech and the legal precedents it may set.
The petitioners have filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, seeking directions to quash the criminal case. Representing the petitioners, senior advocate Ravivarma Kumar made a compelling argument regarding the jurisdiction and responsibility of the organisers.
Kumar contended that the Bengaluru magistrate may lack the jurisdiction to conduct the trial since the event took place in Chennai.
“The case in Karnataka was initiated solely based on a report published in a local newspaper about the Chennai event.”
– he submitted.
Emphasizing the jurisdictional challenge, he questioned-
“The question is, have we committed any offense within the jurisdiction of this magistrate? They claim every publication is an offense, but I did not organize the publications.”
The court proceedings delved into a broader discussion on tolerance and religious respect. Justice Dixit noted that while the question of territorial jurisdiction needed examination, it is crucial for everyone to respect all religions.
Kumar responded by highlighting the inherent tolerance within Hinduism, stating-
“Most religions worldwide are monotheistic, unlike Hinduism, which embraces not only theism but also atheism.”
Justice Dixit referenced the controversial speech made by Stalin, saying-
“But why the denigration?” Kumar clarified, stating, “I am not the author of those statements. The statement is attributed to accused 1 (Stalin).”
The dialogue continued with Justice Dixit pondering-
“Are they the organizers? How would they know what the speaker intends to say?”
Kumar underscored the historical tolerance in Hinduism, remarking-
“The tolerance practiced among Hindus is of the highest order. My senior used to emphasize this repeatedly, highlighting that tolerance is ingrained within us.”
Justice Dixit supported this view by recalling the diverse faiths that have found refuge in India-
“That’s why so many faiths came to this country. Nehru wrote that Christianity arrived in India before it reached Europe. Parsis, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Muslims—all came here.”
Kumar and Justice Dixit engaged in a historical dialogue about religious coexistence in India. Kumar observed-
“Buddhism was expelled.”
to which Justice Dixit responded-
“Buddhism is considered to be a part of Hinduism, as noted by Panicker and Will Durant.”
Kumar expressed reservations over this stance, indicating it was debatable.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Issues Notice to Udhayanidhi Stalin Over Sanatana Dharma Remarks
The discussion also touched on recent incidents of intolerance, with Kumar pointing out the lynching of three men suspected of transporting beef. This led to a nostalgic recounting of a tale illustrating India’s tradition of religious tolerance. Kumar recounted how Parsis convinced a king to let them settle by mixing sugar in a container filled with milk, symbolizing their harmonious integration.
He paralleled this with a Jewish leader in Kerala, saying-
“Even in Kochi, that bowl remains. The captain of the ship, where the Jewish community traveled, placed sugar and made this remark.”
Justice Dixit concluded with a powerful statement on coexistence-
“Yes, coexistence is the mantra… That’s what the Constitution strives for. The country belongs not to one community alone, but to all communities residing within its borders, our motherland.”
The session ended with Justice Dixit passing an interim order. The petitioners were represented by the Keystone Partners team, comprising Aditya Chatterjee, Nikitha Surabhi, and Sahaja Burde, under the leadership of Prof Ravi Verma Kumar.
CASE TITLE:
Su Venkatesan and ors vs. Paramesha V
