Sanatana Dharma row: Supreme Court seeks states' response on Udhayanidhi Stalin plea to club cases

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to multiple state governments and complainants on the plea filed by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin seeking to club the criminal cases registered against him for his controversial remarks on Sanatana Dharma [Udhayanidhi Stalin v. State of Maharashtra and Ors].A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta allowed the amendment of the petition moved by Stalin under Article 32 of the Constitution.In the previous hearing, the Court had objected to the filing of the petition under Article 32 and asked Stalin to amend his plea to bring it under Section 406 (power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)..Stalin is presently facing cases in different states over his comment that,“Just like dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or coronavirus need to be eradicated, we have to eradicate Sanatana."He made the remarks in September 2023 during a conference organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association in Chennai.The top court last month remarked that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader cannot claim that he is in the same position as the media and news channels, who had earlier filed similar petitions for clubbing of cases against them.In March, the Court had observed that Stalin had abused his rights under Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) of the Constitution in making such comments. .In his petition, Stalin has defended his speech and said that same was made before a particular audience, who are followers of same ideology on abolition of caste discrimination.The speech must be viewed with the backdrop of the caste-based discrimination, it adds.Stalin has also invoked his connections with the Dravidian Movement and said he had only followed the footsteps of other popular leaders including his father and DMK President MK Stalin. "The Petitioner being borne in the political arena of the State of Tamil Nadu having witnessed the tenets of his party Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam which are social justice and self-respect has inculcated a different mindset. The issue of caste-discrimination has been pre-dominant issue in the State of Tamil Nadu for a significant time which led to the birth and rise of the Dravidian Movement. The Petitioner being a staunch follower of Dravidian ideology and an heir of the Dravidian movement has followed the footsteps of tall leaders such as Thanthai Periyar, Perarignar Anna, Muthamizh Arignar Dr. Kalaignar and the present DMK President M.K. Stalin, all of whom have practiced and propagated the Dravidian ideology which is based on rationalism, self-respect, equality and brotherhood."On the top court's observation that he cannot equate himself with the media persons, Stalin has argued that,"Any inference that a journalist employed with a television news channel and a Minister of the State Legislative Assembly to have different yardsticks vis-à-vis right to exercise free speech would be against the ethos of the right to speech and expression and violation of Art 14"..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. It said that the comments were “divisive” and against Constitutional principles.Unverified claims about Sanatana Dharma amounts to spreading misinformation, the High Court added..Senior Advocate P Wilson and Advocate Purvish Jitendra Malkan represented Udhayanidhi Stalin.

Sanatana Dharma row: Supreme Court seeks states' response on Udhayanidhi Stalin plea to club cases

Related Stories