Supreme Court: Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks on Sanatana Dharma different from media; plea to consolidate complaints citing media rejected.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on1st April),The Supreme Court highlighted a difference between Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s role and that of journalists or news channels. Stalin made a controversial statement likening the eradication of Sanatana Dharma to fighting diseases like dengue and malaria.
His statement-
“Just like dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or coronavirus need to be eradicated, we have to eradicate Sanatana,” stirred controversy and intensified the ongoing discourse.
Following Stalin’s approach to the apex court, where he requested the consolidation of numerous criminal complaints filed against him across various states, he referenced legal examples involving journalists such as Arnab Goswami and Mohammed Zubair to support his argument.
However, the bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, unequivocally stated-
“After all, you voluntarily made those statements. The instances you referred to involved media personnel following directives to enhance TRPs. Drawing a comparison between your situation and that of the media isn’t valid.”
Stalin, represented by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, P Wilson, and Chitale, requested an adjournment to submit additional documents, including further FIRs/summons from Rajasthan and a memorandum on the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to amalgamate and transfer FIRs.
During the court proceedings, legal comparisons were drawn, including cases involving public figures such as BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma.
Singhvi remarked-
“Nupur Sharma is a bona fide politician.”
The Supreme Court probed the rationale behind Stalin’s decision to file his petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, which pertains to the enforcement of fundamental rights, instead of invoking Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) concerning the transfer of cases and appeals.
Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) –
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
The court ultimately directed Stalin to amend his plea accordingly and scheduled the next hearing for early May.
Stalin’s remarks, delivered at a conference hosted by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association, have incited a range of legal responses and public reactions. This encompasses letters from retired judges and legal petitions filed across multiple judicial platforms, urging accountability and repercussions against him.
ALSO READ: “No System is Perfect” ||PM Narendra Modi Defends Electoral Bond System in Tamil Nadu
While Stalin has defended his remarks as a critique of caste-based discrimination rather than an assault on Hinduism, they have been labeled “divisive” by the High Court. Despite refraining from stripping him of his ministerial position, the court criticized his approach, deeming it contradictory to the Constitution’s principles.
CASE TITLE:
Udhayanidhi Stalin vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
