Today(on 10th May), Supreme Court addresses Udhayanidhi Stalin’s plea to consolidate cases over Sanatana Dharma comments. Notices issued to states and complainants, following petition amendment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today(on 10th May),has addressed the request submitted by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, which seeks the consolidation of criminal cases filed against him due to his contentious comments on Sanatana Dharma. In response, a Bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta has served notices to various state governments and complainants linked to the cases. This progression follows the Court’s approval of amending the petition filed by Stalin under Article 32 of the Constitution.
During a conference organized by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association in Chennai back in September 2023, Udhayanidhi Stalin made a statement that sparked controversy.
He said-
“We need to eradicate Sanatana, similar to how we aim to eliminate diseases such as dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or coronavirus.”
In a previous hearing, the Supreme Court expressed objections to the filing of the petition under Article 32 and requested Stalin to amend his plea to bring it under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which pertains to the power of the Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals. The Court’s decision to issue notices to the concerned parties indicates progress in the legal proceedings surrounding the cases against Stalin.
ALSO READ: Sanatana Dharma Row|| Supreme Court: Udhayanidhi Stalin Not Granted Same Immunity as Media
The Supreme Court’s stance on Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks has been consistent. Last month, the Court emphasized that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader cannot claim the same position as the media and news channels, indicating that his remarks should be scrutinized differently. In March, the Court also observed that Stalin had abused his rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of speech and expression, as well as freedom of conscience and the right to practice and propagate religion, respectively.
In response, 262 individuals, including 14 retired High Court judges, wrote a letter urging the Supreme Court to take suo motu action against Stalin for his controversial comments. This collective appeal highlighted the gravity of the situation and called for appropriate legal action.
Following the letter, a plea was filed before the Supreme Court seeking the registration of a criminal case against Udhayanidhi Stalin. The plea emphasized the need for accountability and legal consequences for his alleged offensive statements. As a result, legal proceedings were initiated to address the concerns raised by the petitioners.
The impact of Stalin’s comments extended beyond a single state. A trial court in Bengaluru ordered the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Stalin for his remarks, further intensifying the legal scrutiny surrounding the issue. Additionally, a Jammu court ordered an inquiry after a litigant filed a criminal complaint related to the controversial statements. These developments demonstrate the widespread repercussions of his remarks and the need for a comprehensive legal examination.
Moreover, a plea was filed before the Madras High Court seeking Udhayanidhi Stalin’s removal from his position as a Minister. In response to the plea, Stalin appeared before the High Court and clarified that his statement was not intended to be against Hinduism or the Hindu way of life. He stated that his words were merely a call to end caste-based discriminatory practices. The Madras High Court, while declining to pass any directive for Stalin’s removal, criticized him for his remarks. The Court characterized his comments as “divisive” and contrary to Constitutional principles.
ALSO READ: Sanatana Dharma Remark | “You Abused Rights”: Supreme Court Slams Udhayanidhi Stalin
The Madras High Court’s assessment emphasized the importance of responsible speech and the potential consequences of spreading unverified claims about Sanatana Dharma. It highlighted the need to avoid misinformation and the dissemination of divisive statements that may harm social harmony. The Court’s stance on this matter underscores the significance of maintaining a respectful and inclusive approach when discussing religious beliefs and practices.
Case Title:
Udhayanidhi Stalin v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.