In a significant development, the Supreme Court has issued a notice to Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader, Udhayanidhi Stalin, over his controversial remarks on ‘Sanatana Dharma’. The apex court’s decision comes in the wake of Udhayanidhi Stalin’s comments where he equated Sanatana Dharma with diseases such as dengue and malaria.
The Supreme Court’s notice also extends to other prominent figures including MP A Raja, MP Thirumavalavan, MP Su Venkatesan, Tamil Nadu DGP, Greater Chennai Police Commissioner, Union Home Ministry, Minister for Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department PK Sekar Babu, and Chairman of Tamil Nadu State Minorities Commission Peter Alphonse, among others.
Udhayanidhi Stalin, in his defense, stated that he is prepared to face any legal challenge and will not be intimidated by
“usual saffron threats.”
He emphasized,
“Bring it on. I am ready to face any legal challenge. We will not be cowed down by such usual saffron threats. We, the followers of Periyar, Anna, and Kalaignar, would fight forever to uphold social justice and establish an egalitarian society under the able guidance of our honourable CM.”
He further expressed his unwavering stance against Sanatana Dharma, asserting that their resolve to prevent its spread in Dravidian land remains undiminished.
However, after facing backlash for his comments, Udhayanidhi clarified that he never advocated for the “genocide” of those following Sanatana Dharma. Instead, he criticized the principle for dividing people based on caste and religion. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, Udhayanidhi’s father, defended his son, stating that the comments were misconstrued by the BJP. He clarified that Udhayanidhi was addressing the discriminatory aspects of Sanatan principles against Scheduled Castes, Tribals, and Women.
The controversy ignited when Udhayanidhi spoke at the ‘Sanatana Abolition Conference’. He remarked,
“There are some things which we have to eradicate and we can’t merely oppose. Mosquitoes, dengue fever, malaria, corona, all these are things which we cannot oppose, we have to eradicate them. Sanatanam is also like this.”
He thanked the organizers for the opportunity to speak on eradicating rather than opposing Sanatana Dharma.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the plea was based on a writ petition filed by Chennai-based lawyer B Jagannath. The petition alleges that the conference had an agenda to target Hinduism and spread hatred using derogatory language. Despite initial reluctance, the court agreed to issue the notice after Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu emphasized the importance of the Supreme Court’s intervention in the matter.
Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks not only sparked political turmoil but also led to multiple criminal complaints and pleas in the Supreme Court demanding action against him. The current petition seeks the registration of an FIR against Udhayanidhi and questions the Tamil Nadu police’s inaction in the matter. The plea also calls for investigations into the event’s background and funding sources.
In light of these events, it’s evident that the remarks on ‘Sanatana Dharma’ have stirred a significant debate, with legal, political, and social implications.
