Sanatana Dharma row: Supreme Court says Udhayanidhi Stalin cannot get same immunity as media

Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin cannot claim that he is in the same position as media and news channels, the Supreme Court said on Monday while responding to Stalin's arguments in a case concerning the controversial remarks made by him in 2023 on Sanatana Dharma [Udhayanidhi Stalin vs State of Maharashtra and Ors]..The Supreme Court was dealing with a plea by Stalin to club multiple criminal complaints registered against him for saying, "Just like dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or coronavirus need to be eradicated, we have to eradicate Sanatana.".While seeking the top court's intervention to club all criminal complaints lodged against him in the matter, Stalin relied on judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in cases involving journalists such as Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami and Mohammed Zubair.However, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta noted that Stalin could not claim to be in the same position as journalists or media outlets."After all, you have made the statements voluntarily. And the cases you cited - those were news media people who were working as per diktats of their bosses to get TRPs. You cannot compare yourself to the media," the Court remarked.Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, P Wilson and Chitale appeared for Stalin and sought time to file a compilation consisting of further FIRs/summons filed in Rajasthan and a submission note regarding the Supreme Court’s power to club and transfer FIRs."How was Sushant Singh Rajput transferred to CBI? I was in Bombay then and matters there became infructuous," Justice Datta said.Singhvi then highlighted the case of BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, who had FIRs in different States against her before it was transferred to one State."Nupur Sharma is pure politician," Singhvi said..The Court questioned why Stalin had filed a petition before the top court under Article 32 (remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights) of the Constitution instead of invoking Section 406 (power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)..The Court eventually ordered Stalin to amend his plea to bring it under Section 406 CrPC and listed the matter for hearing in the week commencing on May 6..Stalin is presently facing complaints from different States in India over his comment on Sanatana Dharma.The remarks in question was made in September 2023 during a speech by Stalin at a conference organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association in Chennai..Days after the speech, 262 persons including 14 retired High Court judges wrote a letter urging the Supreme Court to take suo motu action against Stalin for his controversial comments.Weeks later, a plea was filed before the Supreme Court seeking the registration of a criminal case against Stalin.Meanwhile, a trial court in Bengaluru ordered the registration of an FIR against Stalin for his remarks. A Jammu court also ordered an enquiry after a litigant filed a criminal complaint. A plea was filed before the Madras High Court as well to remove Stalin from his position as a Minister. Before the High Court, Stalin said that his statement was not against Hinduism or the Hindu way of life but was merely a call for ending caste based discriminatory practices.The High Court eventually declined to pass any direction to remove Stalin from his post, but criticised him for his remarks. The Court said that the comments made by the Tamil Nadu State minister were “divisive” and against Constitutional principles and “should not have been made.” Unverified claims about Sanatana Dharma amounts to spreading misinformation, the High Court said. .Meanwhile, Stalin approached the Supreme Court and urged it to club all criminal complaints filed against him in the matter. In the last hearing, the Court took a dim view of Stalin's comments and orally observed that he had abused his rights to free speech and expression and should have been more aware of the consequences of his remarks.