the Supreme Court has strongly criticized Tamil Nadu Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports, Udhayanidhi Stalin, over his contentious remarks regarding Sanatana Dharma, stating that he has abused his rights. The apex court rebuked the minister for misusing constitutional articles 19 and 25 while seeking remedies under article 32, questioning his understanding of the consequences of his statements.
Udhayanidhi Stalin’s remarks, made during a speech at the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artists Association in Chennai in September, sparked nationwide condemnation. He likened Sanatana Dharma to elements like Dengue, Mosquitoes, Malaria, and Corona, suggesting that it should not be opposed but eradicated. The comments led to the filing of FIRs across the country, and Chennai-based advocate B Jagannath approached the Supreme Court with a petition.
The issue gained further legal traction when Hindu Munnani functionaries filed a Quo Warranto writ petition against Udhayanidhi Stalin, along with Minister PK Sekar Babu and DMK MP A Raja. The petition questioned the authority under which these individuals hold public posts, raising concerns about their statements against Sanatana Dharma.
In November, the Madras High Court reserved orders on the quo warranto petitions filed against Udhayanidhi Stalin, P K Sekar Babu, and A Raja in the Sanatana Dharma controversy, without specifying a date for the decision. The court issued notices in response to one of the pleas, seeking the State of Tamil Nadu’s response and that of the embattled minister. Another matter praying for criminal action against Udhayanidhi Stalin was also taken up, prompting Tamil Nadu Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari to express concerns about the proliferation of public interest litigations (PIL) related to the minister’s remarks.
Responding to the law officer’s concerns, Justice Bose assured, “We are not issuing notice, but tagging this with the other one. We will examine the question of entertaining [it] on the next day.” In October, the bench led by Justice Bose had already tagged another petition over the Tamil Nadu minister’s remarks about ‘Sanatana Dharma’ with two other pending pleas.
an apex court bench consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta rebuked Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin during the hearing of his plea seeking the consolidation of FIRs registered against him in multiple states. The FIRs stem from the DMK leader’s controversial remarks made in various locations, including Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Jammu and Kashmir, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Karnataka.
The bench expressed its displeasure with Udhayanidhi Stalin’s approach, stating that he should be aware of the consequences of making such statements. Justice Datta, addressing Stalin’s counsel Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, highlighted the minister’s alleged abuse of constitutional rights. Justice Datta pointed out, “You abuse your Article 19(1)(a) right. You abuse your Article 25 right. Now you are exercising your Article 32 right? Do you not know the consequences of what you said? You abuse your rights under freedom of speech and expression and right to freedom of religion and then come to Supreme Court for protection under Article 32.”
Singhvi, while not justifying Stalin’s comments, emphasized that the minister faces FIRs in six states and is seeking consolidation to avoid being constantly tied up with the case. When advised to approach the respective high courts, Singhvi expressed concerns about the practicality of moving six high courts, referring to it as “persecution before the prosecution.”
Justice Datta reminded Singhvi, “You are not a layman. You are a minister. You should know the consequences.” Despite these remarks, the bench agreed to consider the plea on Friday. Singhvi clarified that he is not making any statements on the merits of the case but urged the court not to let its view on the case’s merits affect the plea for consolidating the FIRs.
Udhayanidhi’s counsel drew attention to previous Supreme Court orders in cases involving Amish Devgan, Arnab Goswami, Nupur Sharma, and Mohammed Zubair, where consolidation of FIRs in multiple states was allowed. The bench, however, raised questions about witnesses from one jurisdiction being asked to go to another. Singhvi cited the Nupur Sharma case, where despite provocative comments, the court granted consolidation relief. He argued that the cause of action in all FIRs was the same, originating from the Tamil Nadu minister’s remarks.
Citing Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Singhvi emphasised the territorial aspect of criminal jurisdiction. The bench eventually agreed to consider the plea on March 15, marking another significant chapter in the legal proceedings surrounding Udhayanidhi Stalin’s controversial comments.
Comments