Today, On 22nd November, The Supreme Court postponed the hearing of a plea concerning Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s controversial “eradicate Sanatan” remark. Udhayanidhi, who also serves as the Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports, is a prominent actor and the son of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK chief M.K. Stalin. The remark has sparked significant political and public backlash.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court postponed the hearing on Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s request to consolidate several FIRs filed against him regarding his controversial statement about “eradicating Sanatan Dharma.”
A bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar rescheduled the hearing for February 2025.
The court also stated that the interim order allowing Stalin to be exempt from appearing in person before the trial courts will remain in effect until further notice.
During the proceedings, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Stalin, noted that some complainants had yet to submit their responses to the plea.
Previously, on March 4, the Supreme Court criticized Stalin for his comments, questioning why he sought to club the FIRs after allegedly misusing his right to freedom of speech.
Stalin, who is the Tamil Nadu Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports, is also a prominent film actor and the son of Chief Minister M.K. Stalin
“Sanatana Dharma is against social justice and equality and should be eradicated,”
And likened it to “coronavirus, malaria, and dengue,” asserting that it should be “destroyed.”
Following his remarks, multiple FIRs filed against him across several states, including Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, and Karnataka.
Read Also: Sanatana Dharma Remark | “You Abused Rights”: Supreme Court Slams Udhayanidhi Stalin
The Supreme Court’s decision to defer the hearing has added another layer of complexity to the issue. The court’s response to this case is being closely watched, as it could set a precedent for how similar matters involving freedom of speech and alleged hate speech are handled. Legal experts suggest that the case highlights the tension between the right to free expression and the need to maintain communal harmony.
As the controversy continues, it has reignited broader debates on the interpretation of Sanatan Dharma, caste dynamics, and the boundaries of political rhetoric. The DMK’s critics have used the remark to target the party, accusing it of fostering anti-Hindu sentiments, while supporters view it as a continuation of the party’s legacy of challenging oppressive social norms.
The case highlights the intricate interplay of politics, religion, and law in contemporary India.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
