NEW DELHI, Sept 16: Amidst the current political row over the alleged ill-effects of “Sanatana Dharma,” the Madras High Court on Saturday chided the Tamil Nadu minister Udhayanidhi Stalin for his recent remarks against Sanatana Dharma and said any free speech when come to religion should not cause injury to others and respect for all religions must be maintained.
The court admitted that there had been some intrusion of untouchability, barred under the constitution and also in religious scriptures, had crept into practices of Hinduism which need to be weeded out, but that did not mean the Hindu religion per se was bad.
The court said the Sanatana Dharma was a set of ‘eternal duties’ which can be gathered from multiple sources relating to Hinduism or those practising the Hindu way of life, and includes “the duty to the nation, duty to the King, King’s duty to his people, duty to one’s parents and Gurus, care for the poor, and whole lot of other duties”.
Justice N Seshasayee said in his order on Saturday that the court was conscious of “the very vociferous, and at time noisy debates on pro and anti Sanatana Dharma” and the court could not help pondering over with genuine concern for what was going around.
The court also said when free speech was exercised in matters pertaining to religion, it was necessary for one to ensure that no one was injured and “free speech cannot be hate speech.” “Somewhere, an idea appears to have gained ground that Sanatana Dharma is all about, and only about, promoting casteism and untouchability. Untouchability in a country of equal citizens cannot be tolerated, and even if it is seen as permitted somewhere within the principles of ‘Sanatana dharma’, it still cannot have a space to stay, since Article 17 of the Constitution has declared that untouchability has been abolished. It is part of the fundamental right,” the court said.
“And, under Art. 51A(a), it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to, ‘abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions..’. Therefore, untouchability, either within or outside Sanatana Dharma can no longer be Constitutional, though sadly it still exits,” it added.
The court referred to the arguments on behalf of the petitioner Elangovan and said he had submitted with considerable force that nowhere Sanatana Dharma either approves or promotes untouchability, and it only insists the practitioners of Hinduism to treat all equally.
“As religious practices move with time, some bad or evil practices may un-noticingly creep into it. They are the weeds required to be removed. But why should the crop be chopped?’ – This, in short the essence of the submissions of the learned counsel,” the court noted.
The court was hearing a petition challenging a circular issued by a local government college asking girl students to share their thoughts on the topic ‘Opposition to Sanatana’ on the birth anniversary of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK founder CN Annadurai. The court disposed of the plea after noting that the circular had already been withdrawn by the college.
The court said it was conscious that every citizen has a fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. “While right to free speech is inalienable, it is also important to underscore that one is adequately informed, as it adds value to what is spoken. It should not be forgotten that the Constitutional framers have very consciously not made right to free speech as an absolute right. They have restricted it with Article 19(2),” the order said.
It said Article 25 has granted all citizens the fundamental right to practice any religion. “Every religion is founded on faith, and faith by nature accommodates irrationality. Therefore, when free speech is exercised in matters pertaining to religion, it is necessary for one to ensure that no one is injured,” the court said.
“In other words, free speech cannot be hate speech, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned. The users of free speech must not ignore to factor these aspects while exercising their right. If this is ignored, the course of any debate will get derailed, and the objective behind it will lose significance,” it added.
(Manas Dasgupta)
