‘You’re not a layman“: SC raps Udhayanidhi Stalin in ‘Sanatana Dharma’ remarks case
The Supreme Court on Monday admonished Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin for comments against Sanatana Dharma, which had sparked outrage last year. The apex court orally observed that Udhayanidhi 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 Indian Constitution in making such comments. The Bench also said that Udhayanidhi should have been more aware of the consequences of his remarks.
“You have abused your rights under 19(1)a and 25! You know what you have said and now have come under 32? You should have realized the consequences, you are a Minister, not a layman,” said the bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta.
The Court remarked while hearing a plea by Udhayanidhi to club multiple first information reports (FIRs) registered against him for his remarks on Sanatana Dharma. On September 2, 2023, at a conference organized by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association in Chennai, Udhayanidhi Stalin said that a few things must not merely be opposed but should be eradicated. “Just like dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or coronavirus need to be eradicated, we have to eradicate Sanatana,” he said.
Weeks later, a plea was filed before the Supreme Court seeking the registration of a criminal case against Stalin. Last month, a trial court in Bengaluru ordered the registration of an FIR against Stalin for his remarks. Petitions are pending before the Madras High Court as well seeking removal of Stalin as Minister.
Later, Udhayanidhi said that his statement on Sanatana Dharma was not against Hinduism or the Hindu way of life but was merely a call for ending caste-based discriminatory practices. On Monday in Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented Udhayanidhi and sought the clubbing of FIRs lodged in various States in light of judgments in the cases of Arnab Goswami, Mohd Zubair, Nupur Sharma and Amish Devgan.
The Court initially suggested that Udhayanidhi move to different High Courts. Singhvi, however, urged for clubbing of the FIRs. He stated that he was not arguing on merits and was ready to accept the consequences. “This (the remarks) was said in a private meeting,” he said while urging the Court to club all the FIRs.
Justice Datta, however, questioned why witnesses from other States should be made to visit a different State by clubbing all the FIRs and having the matter heard in a single State. As the hearing drew to a close, Singhvi also remarked that controversial remarks made by former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson, Nupur Sharma about Prophet Muhammad in 2022 were “no less” hateful.
Later the Bench agreed to hear Udhayanidhi’s plea further on March 15, after going through the judgments and the progress of trials in some of the FIRs against the DMK leader.
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
- Supreme Court rejects plea to tally all VVPAT slips with EVM votes; says ‘no going back to paper ballot’ - April 26, 2024
- US report citing human rights violations is deeply biased: India - April 25, 2024
- Kotak Mahindra Bank shares tank 13%. Market Cap erodes by Rs.37,721 cr post-RBI action - April 25, 2024
If the court’s remarks were have any meaning or any impact this country would be a different place. The fear is that even the orders would be treated like this in the years to come. All that would be needed is a lot of money and lawyers with specialized clout in getting urgent hearing to avoid going to jail and then stretch the case until death.