In a significant ruling challenging prevailing narratives propagated by Dravidian parties, the Madras High Court has debunked claims related to the invasion of Aryans and the Varnashrama system. The landmark decision came in response to Writs of Quo Warranto filed by Hindu Munnani functionaries against Tamil Nadu Ministers Udhaya Nidhi Stalin, PK Sekar Babu, and DMK MP A Raja.
Madras High Court judge Anita Sumanth, in her detailed 107-page verdict, clarified that the caste system is not rooted in the ancient Varnashrama system and emphasised the importance of dispelling false narratives. While acknowledging that making unproven statements about Sanatana Dharma constitutes promoting misinformation, the judge declined to issue a writ of quo warrant to remove Minister Udhaya Nidhi Stalin.
In her ruling, Judge Sumanth addressed the broader context, stating, “In a matter of the present nature, there is nothing to be gained by being hyper-technical. If the individuals are adopting a position of principle, it would have been preferable that they stick to that position and argue on the strength of that principle rather than succumb to hyper-technical objections.”
The judge went on to highlight the significance of Sanatana Dharma, emphasising that it represents and expounds the core values of Hinduism. The call for the eradication of Sanatana Dharma was deemed equivalent to a call for the eradication of Hinduism itself, justified on the anvil of Dravidian ideology.
Judge Sumanth noted that the individual respondents, including the ministers, were well aware that Sanatana Dharma is synonymous with Hinduism. The court stressed that if there were any divergence in views, the speakers should have clearly expressed them, which had not been done. The speeches and participation of the ministers were deemed to be in their official capacity, and they did not deny their statements, with their only explanation being a reliance on the speeches of Periyar and Ambedkar, who had not held constitutional posts.
This ruling is significant as it challenges prevailing narratives and sheds light on the need for accurate historical perspectives. It reinforces the distinction between the ancient Varnashrama system and the modern-day caste system while emphasising the importance of avoiding misinformation.
The verdict is expected to have broader implications in shaping public discourse and understanding of historical and cultural aspects related to Hinduism. The Madras High Court’s decision stands as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in clarifying historical facts and dispelling misconceptions for the sake of promoting a more informed and inclusive society
In its elaborate analysis, the court underscored that the blame for the caste system in society is often attributed to the Vedic varna system, which differs from Sanatana Dharma. The State of Tamil Nadu was specifically noted to have a list of 184 castes categorised as backward and most backward, divisions that did not originate from Vedic literature but are relatively recent creations.
Addressing the petitioners’ concerns, the court highlighted that if the individual respondents genuinely aim to prevent divisions and foster integration, they should work towards erasing distinctions among prevailing castes in the state and promoting equality. The court further noted that Tamil Nadu’s 69% reservation, exceeding the 50% reservation held by the rest of the country, is not a function of the Vedic varna system but a contemporary development.
The Varna system isn't casteist; it's just a century-old practice. Wah!
Apart from deciding whether the TN Ministers' comments on #SanatanaDharma are unconstitutional or not, the HC also made assertions like a well-versed researcher and historian. https://t.co/NT34A729Oi
— Bhaskar Basava (@BhaskarBasava) March 7, 2024
Addressing the intricacies of caste dynamics in Tamil Nadu, the court highlighted the existence of 370 registered castes in the state, leading to a cacophony of tensions and pressures among various groups claiming allegiance to different castes. It noted that the fierce competition among individuals belonging to different castes is exacerbated by the benefits provided to them, questioning whether the blame for such circumstances can be solely attributed to the ancient Varna system.
The court underscored the importance of leaders exhibiting fairness, moderation in speech, and a sincere desire to understand differences among people to lead an egalitarian society with equal sharing of resources. It criticised individuals for exacerbating casteist passions, stating that such actions are not in the interests of the state or its people.
Furthermore, the court clarified that the Varna system does not advocate division based on birth but on avocation, designed centuries ago to facilitate the smooth functioning of society based on its needs at the time. However, it questioned the relevance of such a system in contemporary society.
The court labelled statements made by individuals as disinformation and hate speech, prohibited under Articles 19 and 25 of the Constitution. It reminded me that the right to free speech under Article 19 is not absolute and imposes reasonable restrictions to protect various aspects such as the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, and morality.
The court referred to the law that protects against statements endangering public order and the country’s integrity, emphasising the role of the judiciary in curbing actions that could undermine the constitutional fabric. Citing the judgement of the Supreme Court in Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP, the court emphasised that a speech by a sitting minister promising harm to Sanatana Dharma, amounts to an actionable tort.
In a nuanced exploration of the term ‘Sanatan Dharma,’ the court elucidated its meaning as an eternal or perpetual value system or code of conduct. It clarified that the use of the word ‘Sanatana’ as a standalone expression is confusing, emphasising that it gains its desired meaning only when used together with ‘Dharma.’ The term signifies a timeless and pervasive code of conduct that transcends barriers, divisions, and differences.
The High Court acknowledged historical conflicts fueled by caste divisions but unambiguously ruled that such acts are unacceptable. The court’s firm stand emphasises the need for constitutional functionaries to uphold the principles of equality, fairness, and understanding, steering clear of actions that could incite discord and threaten the country’s foundational values.
