The court’s action was prompted by remarks Udhayanidhi Stalin delivered at an event hosted by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artists Association in Chennai on September 2, 2023. In his address, Stalin drew a contentious comparison, stating, “In the same way we aim to eliminate dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or coronavirus, it’s essential we also aim to eliminate Sanatana.”
On Friday, a legal development that has sparked widespread discussion and debate, a Bangalore court has ordered the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Udhayanidhi Stalin, a prominent political figure and Tamil writer, along with others, over remarks made about Sanatana Dharma. This move underscores the delicate balance between freedom of speech and respect for religious sentiments in India’s pluralistic society.
Also read- Supreme Court Declines Individual Hate Speech Cases, Focuses On Systemic Mechanism (lawchakra.in)
The court’s directive came in response to comments made by Stalin at a conference organized by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artists Association in Chennai on September 2, 2023. During his speech, Stalin made a controversial statement:
“Just like dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or coronavirus need to be eradicated, we have to eradicate Sanatana,”
which led to immediate outrage and was widely reported, including by the Kannada newspaper Vijaya Tharanga. This statement, perceived by many as an attack on Sanatana Dharma, prompted a private complaint, leading to the court’s recent action.
The FIR includes charges under Sections 153 (provocation to cause riot), 298 (hurting religious sentiments), and 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), reflecting the serious nature of the allegations. The court, led by Special (Magistrate) Court Judge J Preeth, has taken a firm stance on the issue, emphasizing the importance of maintaining communal harmony and respecting the religious beliefs of all communities.
Besides Udhayanidhi Stalin, the court’s order also implicates Tamil writer S Venkatesh, Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artists Association State President Madhukar Ramalingam, and Association Secretary Adavan Dichanya, indicating the broad scope of the investigation and the potential implications for those involved in the conference.
Also read- Kangana Ranaut Vs Javed Akhtar: Bombay High Court’s Verdict (lawchakra.in)
In the aftermath of the controversy, Stalin sought to clarify his remarks, stating that his criticism of Sanatana Dharma was not an attack on Hinduism or the Hindu way of life but rather a call to end caste-based discriminatory practices. This clarification highlights the complex interplay between advocating for social reform and the risk of offending religious sensibilities in India’s diverse cultural landscape.
The case, set to be heard next on March 4, has not only legal but also significant social and political ramifications. It brings to the forefront the ongoing debate over the limits of free speech, the protection of religious sentiments, and the role of the judiciary in navigating these contentious issues.
Moreover, petitions are pending before the Madras High Court seeking the removal of Stalin as minister, indicating the potential political fallout from the controversy. This legal battle over Stalin’s remarks about Sanatana Dharma is a testament to the vibrant, albeit sometimes volatile, nature of public discourse in India, where the intersection of politics, religion, and freedom of expression continues to challenge and shape the fabric of society.
