Udhayanidhi Stalin sparked a nationwide controversy when, at a conference in Chennai, he compared Sanatana Dharma to diseases like dengue and malaria, asserting that it needed to be eradicated. This prompted widespread outrage and led to numerous complaints filed against him across the country. Legal action was taken in both the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court.
In a recent turn of events, Udhayanidhi, during a hearing in the Madras High Court, claimed to have spoken in his individual capacity at the conference and not as a minister. However, he refused to submit video and audio evidence to support this claim. Hindu Munnani functionaries filed a writ of Quo Warranto against Udhayanidhi, HR and CE Minister Sekar Babu, and DMK MP A Raja in the Madras High Court.
Udhayanidhi Stalin Refuses to Apologise
Despite the legal challenges and controversies, Udhayanidhi Stalin remains resolute in his stand. He initially stated, “DMK was established to oppose the principles of Sanatan Dharma. We are not bothered about the government. We will always stay true to our ideology.” He went on to say that the DMK is ready to lose its government for speaking against Sanatan Dharma.
In a recent interaction at an event, Udhayanidhi reiterated his position. He highlighted that the controversy originated from a two-minute speech he delivered at Kamarajar Arangam, which was then exaggerated and misrepresented. Despite calls for an apology, Udhayanidhi firmly stated, “Let law take its course. We have faith in the court. We did not speak about any religion derogatorily.”
"Am MK.Stalin's son and Kalaignar's grandson I still stand by my Eradicate Sanathana Dharma stand and I will not apologize for it we will face it in the court"
– TN DMK minister Udhayanidhi Stalin. pic.twitter.com/ePXPFdqR5f— Vishwatma 🇮🇳 ( மோடியின் குடும்பம் ) (@HLKodo) November 9, 2023
Udhayanidhi framed the issue of Sanatana Dharma as a long-standing debate, stating, “This Sanatana issue is a long one, and we have been discussing this for centuries.” He emphasised the need for opposing it and urged everyone to prioritize humanity over religious divisions.
During the writ of quo warranto hearing, Justice Anita Sumantha questioned Udhayanidhi’s understanding of Sanatana Dharma, suggesting that it appeared to be based on the inherent divisions of caste. Udhayanidhi’s counsel, Wilson, defended his client’s perspective, citing the writings and speeches of Dravidian ideologue E V Ramaswamy and the Constitution’s chief architect, BR Ambedkar. The counsel also referred to an advanced textbook of Hindu religion and ethics published by the Central Hindu College in Benares.
Legal Perspectives and Response from BJP
Udhayanidhi’s counsel argued that Article 25 of the Constitution safeguards both religious beliefs and the principles of atheism, granting the right to express atheistic views. He contended that there was no valid case against Minister Udayanidhi, emphasising the right to hold alternative opinions without infringing upon majority beliefs.
However, TN BJP Vice President Prof P Kanagasabapathi quoted remarks from the High Court that found fault with the police for not taking action against Udhayanidhi and Sekar Babu. The BJP highlighted concerns about inflammatory speeches targeting Sanatana Dharma and the alleged failure of law enforcement to address such incidents.
TN police should have taken action against two state ministers, Udhayanidhi Stalin and Sekar Babu, for participating in the Sanatana Eradication conference; but has failed in its responsibility. – Chennai High Court expresses displeasure. @BJP4TamilNadu @BJP4India @blsanthosh https://t.co/5BT8MO7oP5
— Prof.P.Kanagasabapathi (@pkspathi) November 6, 2023
Justice Jayachandran of the Madras High Court made a noteworthy observation while dismissing a petition. He remarked on the police’s failure to act against those who had made inflammatory speeches to eradicate Sanatana Dharma and expressed concern about the potential disturbance to public peace if counter-meetings were allowed. The judge noted that fringe groups supporting individuals who have taken an oath to preserve the spirit of the constitution are already causing disruptions.
As the legal battle continues, the controversy surrounding Udhayanidhi Stalin’s comments on Sanatana Dharma raises broader questions about the intersection of free speech, religious sentiments, and political ideologies in the Indian context. The outcome of these legal proceedings will undoubtedly have implications for the ongoing debate on the limits of expression in a diverse and culturally rich society.
