Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Mar 6: Even as condemning their “perverse and divisive” comments against the “Sanatana Dharma,” the Madras High Court on Wednesday granted relief to the DMK Leaders, ministers Udhayanidhi Stalin and PK Sekar Babu and the DMK MP A Raja dismissing a petition challenging their continuation in their respective offices.
While emphasising that Mr Stalin’s remarks were “wrong,” Justice Anita Sumanth noted that he has not been convicted by any court yet and that the petitions were premature as multiple FIRs related to the issue were still under police investigation with no convictions till date.
The court’s refusal to issue the writ of quo warranto means Mr Stalin and Mr Sekar Babu, both ministers in the MK Stalin cabinet in Tamil Nadu, and Nilgiris MP A Raja will not be removed from their offices based on allegations against them.
The 46-year-old DMK leader, who is the son of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, had made the controversial remarks on Sanatana Dharma last September. The remarks, in which he said “Sanatana is like malaria and dengue and must be eradicated”, had sparked a massive row.
Besides Udayanidhi Stalin, the petitioners had sought removal of state minister PK Sekar Babu and DMK MP A Raja from the Assembly. While Mr Babu was present when Udayanidhi made the remark, Mr Raja had endorsed what he said.
Doubling down on his remarks, Mr Stalin has said he had targeted caste-based discrimination and not Hinduism. He has also said he is prepared to face legal action, but he stands by his remarks.
The petitions were filed by Hindu Munnani office-bearers T Manohar, J Kishore Kumar and V P Jayakumar in their individual capacities, alleging that the actions of the legislators and the MP were against Sanatana Dharma, which could be equated to Hinduism, and thus, could not continue in their legislative roles.
Particularly, Udhayanidhi’s call for the annihilation of Sanatana Dharma during a conference organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association in Chennai was a central point of contention.
The latest ruling from the Madras HC comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s critique of Udhayanidhi for his remarks on Sanatana Dharma, questioning the appropriateness of his approach to the top court after making such statements.
Justice Sumanth made critical observations about their statements concerning Sanatana Dharma, describing them as “perverse and divisive” and against the constitutional mandate. Such remarks, the judge said, were not only contrary to the principles of constitutionalism but also amounted to spreading gross disinformation by equating Sanatana Dharma with diseases like HIV, AIDS, dengue, and malaria, which she stated should be eradicated.
Justice Sumanth underscored the expectation that ideological differences among those in power should be based on a thorough understanding of the critiqued system and that criticism should be constructive rather than destructive. She said constitutional morality should guide the conduct of individuals holding public office, and insisted that their statements must be factually accurate and in adherence to the morality propounded by the Constitution.
The Ministers and the MP, on the other hand, had questioned the maintainability of the writ petitions and contended that no writ of quo warranto that questioned the authority under which they were continuing as legislators, could be issued, for the reasons stated by the petitioners in their affidavits.
The Judge, however, insisted on hearing the matter both on the question of maintainability as well as on merits. After marathon arguments on different days since October this year, she reserved her verdict on December 21, 2023 after the Senior Counsels completed the submission of oral arguments as well as written arguments.
Commenting on the High Court judgement, P Wilson, DMK MP and counsel for Udhayanidhi Stalin, said, “It is a big victory. The BJP distorted the speech. It was not against Hindu religion but only against caste discrimination and caste hegemony,” he said. The row over his statement prompted police cases in several states of the country. The DMK leader has now approached the Supreme Court with the request that the multiple FIRs be clubbed into one.
The top court has responded sternly. A bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta pulled him up, saying that as a minister, he should be aware of the consequences of his words. “You abuse your right under Article 19(1)(a) (of the Constitution). You abuse your right under Article 25. Now you are exercising your right under Article 32 (to file plea in the Supreme Court)? Do you not know the consequences of what you said? You are not a layman. You are a minister. You should know the consequences,” the Supreme Court had said on Monday.
Representing Udhayanidhi Stalin, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appealed to the Supreme Court for relief, requesting to club all FIRs. He pointed out that these FIRs had been filed in Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, and Maharashtra.
The controversy escalated on social media, with the BJP accusing the Congress of supporting a “genocidal” call against Sanatana Dharma. Udhayanidhi Stalin responded to the criticism on social media, denying that he called for the genocide of those following Sanatana Dharma. He argued that Sanatana Dharma perpetuates social divisions based on caste and religion and is fundamentally opposed to equality and social justice. The Tamil Nadu minister said he was ready to present the extensive writings of social activist Periyar and Dr BR Ambedkar, who conducted in-depth research on Sanatana Dharma.
“I am ready to present the extensive writings of Periyar and Ambedkar, who conducted in-depth research on Sanatana Dharma and its negative impact on society in any forum. Let me reiterate the crucial aspect of my speech: I believe, like the spread of diseases like COVID-19, Dengue, and Malaria by mosquitoes, that Sanatana Dharma is responsible for many social evils,” Udhayanidhi Stalin wrote in a social media post last year.
“I am prepared to confront any challenges that come my way, whether in a court of law or the people’s court. Stop spreading fake news,” he added.
