Karnataka Court grants conditional bail to TN Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin
A Bengaluru city court has granted conditional bail to Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin for his controversial remark calling for the eradication of Sanatana Dharma. The 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, K N Shivakumar, issued the bail order on June 25 following Stalin’s personal appearance in response to a summons.
Stalin, who had previously skipped two summonses, was directed to appear in court based on a petition filed by social activist Paramesh. The special judge overseeing cases against current and former MLAs and MPs required Stalin to furnish a security bond of Rs 5,000 and a personal bond of Rs 50,000. Additionally, Stalin was mandated to provide a surety of Rs 1 lakh.
Stalin’s legal representative argued that multiple cases, totaling seven, had been registered against him across the country. An appeal is pending before the Supreme Court to consolidate all these cases. Despite the ongoing legal challenges, the court moved forward with the bail petition. Tight police security was present during Stalin’s court appearance.
The case has been adjourned to August 7. The court had earlier issued summons for Stalin to appear in person, which he complied with on this occasion.
Social activist Paramesh lodged a complaint against Udhayanidhi Stalin in September last year, following his inflammatory remarks comparing Sanatana Dharma to diseases like dengue and malaria, suggesting it should be eradicated. The court registered a case under IPC sections 153 (provocation with intent to cause riot), 296 (disturbing religious assembly), and 500 (defamation).
Paramesh’s complaint also named Venkatesh, Madhukar Ramalingam, and Ahdhavan Dichany, who were present at the same event. However, the Karnataka High Court recently stayed proceedings against these individuals.
The controversy began when social activist Paramesh filed a complaint against Udhayanidhi Stalin in September last year, leading to a case being registered under IPC sections 153 (provocation with intent to cause riot), 296 (disturbing religious assembly), and 500 (defamation). The complaint also named Venkatesh, Madhukar Ramalingam, and Ahdhavan Dichany, who were present at the same event. However, the Karnataka High Court recently stayed proceedings against these individuals.
Stalin’s remarks have led to legal actions in multiple states, including Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Jammu and Kashmir. In Bihar, a court in Ara took cognizance of a complaint on March 12 and issued summons against Stalin. Advocate Dharnidhar Pandey claimed that Stalin’s remarks had hurt the religious sentiments of millions of Hindus and accused him of addressing the crowd with criminal intent and threatening national unity.
In January, a special court in Bihar’s capital served a summons on Stalin, directing him to appear for a hearing on February 13 regarding his controversial remarks. In Muzaffarpur, Special Judge (MP/MLA cases) Sarika Wahaliya offered Stalin the option of having a lawyer represent him at the hearing to respond to the charges.
In March, Udhayanidhi Stalin approached the Supreme Court seeking the consolidation of multiple first-information reports (FIRs) registered against him in different states over his remarks. The apex court criticized him for his comments, observing that he violated his right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.
Additionally, Chennai-based advocate B Jagannath filed a quo warranto writ in the Supreme Court, alongside petitions from Hindu Munnani office bearers against Stalin and other DMK leaders for their remarks on Sanatana Dharma. The Madras High Court, on June 6, refused to issue a writ of quo warranto against Stalin, PK Sekar Babu, and A Raja. The court emphasized that people holding high posts must act responsibly and verify historical events before making divisive comments.
On May 10, the Supreme Court issued a notice on a plea by Udhayanidhi Stalin seeking directions to consolidate the various FIRs and complaints lodged against him. A bench presided over by Justice Sanjiv Khanna sought responses from various state governments in the matter. On April 1, the bench, which also included Justice Dipankar Datta, had granted time to bring all subsequent events into the petition through an application for amendment.
Leave a Comment