Udhayanidhi Stalin, Tamil Nadu’s Minister for Sports and Youth Welfare, faces a setback in his legal battle as the Supreme Court dismisses his plea seeking immunity akin to that of journalists for his controversial comments on Sanatana Dharma made in 2023. The apex court bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, rebuffed Stalin’s argument, stating that he cannot equate himself with journalists.
The court’s response comes in light of Stalin’s attempt to consolidate multiple criminal complaints filed against him for his remarks, which drew widespread condemnation. In his plea, Stalin sought to club the cases filed against him in various states, including Bihar, Karnataka, Jammu and Kashmir, and Tamil Nadu. However, the bench refuted his claim, emphasising that he voluntarily made the statements and could not claim the same position as media professionals.
Stalin’s comments, where he likened the eradication of “Sanatana Dharma” to combating diseases like dengue and malaria, sparked a political firestorm and led to legal repercussions. Despite facing strong criticism, Stalin remained steadfast in his stance, refusing to offer regret or an apology for his remarks. He argued that “Sanatan Dharma” was antithetical to social justice and stood by his words, expressing readiness to confront any legal challenges.
The Madras High Court had previously declined to issue a writ of ‘quo warranto’ against Udhayanidhi Stalin and other Tamil Nadu ministers over their controversial remarks on Sanatana Dharma. The court observed that individuals holding high positions must exercise greater responsibility and verify historical facts before making public statements. The single judge deemed Stalin’s comments divisive and contrary to constitutional principles, highlighting the need for discretion and accountability among public figures.
Udhayanidhi Stalin, Tamil Nadu’s Minister for Sports and Youth Welfare, faced a setback in his legal battle as the Supreme Court declined his plea to consolidate multiple criminal complaints filed against him for his controversial remarks on Sanatana Dharma. Stalin sought the top court’s intervention to club the cases, citing precedents involving journalists like Arnab Goswami, Mohammed Zubair, Amish Devgan, and Nupur Sharma.
However, the bench, comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta, dismissed Stalin’s argument, stating that judicial proceedings cannot be touched by the Supreme Court under its writ jurisdiction. They noted that while some cases had been taken cognisance of and summons issued, Stalin could have pursued the transfer of criminal cases under Section 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code, not Article 32 of the Constitution.
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, P Wilson, and Chitale represented Stalin, requesting time to compile further FIRs/summons filed in Rajasthan and to submit a note on the Supreme Court’s power to club and transfer FIRs. Justice Datta questioned the transfer of the Sushant Singh Rajput case to the CBI, indicating the complexities surrounding such matters.
Following Stalin’s speech, 262 individuals, including 14 retired High Court judges, urged the Supreme Court to take suo motu action against him for his controversial comments. Earlier, on March 4, the apex court reprimanded Stalin for his anti-Hindu statements and sought relief to club multiple FIRs, stating that as a minister, he should have been aware of the consequences.
Critics accuse the DMK of resorting to legal manoeuvring to shield its leaders from legal action, citing cases involving Senthil Balaji, A Raja, and others. They allege that the DMK engages top lawyers in Delhi, paying exorbitant fees to expedite petitions, which are heard out of turn and listed before benches of their choice.
Recently, around 600 members of the bar, including prominent lawyer Harish Salve, wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), expressing solidarity with the Supreme Court amidst attempts to undermine its authority. Prime Minister Modi endorsed the letter, sharing its text on social media platforms. The gesture signifies widespread support for the judiciary in the face of challenges to its integrity and independence.
