The Madras High Court, presided over by Justice Anita Sumanth, has reserved its verdict on the controversial remarks made by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin and other Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leaders regarding Sanatana Dharma. The court’s decision follows quo warranto writ petitions filed by leaders of the right-wing outfit Hindu Munnani, challenging the public office held by these leaders.
Senior Advocate P Wilson, representing Udhayanidhi Stalin, Minister PK Sekar Babu, and MP A Raja, countered the accusations that DMK leaders were speaking against Hindus. He argued that the majority of the state, including DMK cadres, were Hindus and that the Dravidian party had been elected by Hindus. Wilson further stated that Udhayanidhi’s remarks on Sanatana Dharma had been accepted by the people of Tamil Nadu, who were majorly Hindu, and that the DMK Government stood by these ideologies.
Addressing the court, Udhayanidhi’s counsel argued that the petitions were a political battle and appealed to the court not to allow it to be used for ideological battles. He stated,
“Those who cannot beat NOTA need not claim to be representatives of Hindus.”
The counsel also submitted that prescribing disqualifications for MPs and MLAs is the sole prerogative of Parliament under Article 191 (e) and that the courts should respect the separation of powers.
Udhayanidhi had previously submitted that he had no intention to belittle or disrespect any religion and was only against religious practices that discriminated against people. The court had inquired about the research he had done to understand ‘Sanatana Dharma’ before making his remarks.
Minister Sekar Babu submitted that the pleas were filed only because he had taken steps to recover temple properties allegedly encroached by members of the Hindu Munnani. MP A Raja argued that freedom of speech and expression were placed above the freedom of religion. He added that the legal mechanism for disqualifying a Member of Parliament had been exhaustively provided and none of the grounds raised by the petitioners satisfied the requirement of a violation of a ‘statutory provision’ for the issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto.
The petitioners contended that while the constitution granted freedom of speech and expression, this freedom could not be used to speak against someone else’s fundamental right to practice and profess a religion.
After hearing elaborate arguments, Justice Anita Sumanth reserved orders without specifying any date, leaving the outcome of this high-profile case awaited with keen interest.
