The Supreme Court of India has issued notices to DMK Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin in response to his plea for consolidating the multiple criminal cases registered against him across various states over his controversial remarks on ‘Sanatana Dharma.’ The apex court’s decision comes after widespread outrage and legal actions were triggered by Stalin’s comments comparing Sanatana Dharma to diseases like dengue and malaria, calling for its eradication.
On September 2, 2023, Udhayanidhi Stalin, who is the son of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, made the controversial remarks, sparking a nationwide outcry. In the aftermath, cases were filed against him in several states, including Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Jammu and Kashmir. Additionally, Chennai-based advocate B. Jagannath filed a quo warranto writ in the Supreme Court, along with a batch of other petitions. A total of 262 individuals, including 14 retired High Court judges, also wrote to the Supreme Court, urging it to take suo motu action against Stalin.
On August 14, a division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar, considered the plea and expressed that the cases against Stalin would likely need to be transferred out of Tamil Nadu. Justice Khanna noted, “You can’t be in the State of Tamil Nadu, you will have to go out…tell us which is the most convenient state.”
During the hearing, the names of Kerala, Bangalore, and Patna were proposed as possible locations for the trial. The bench briefly considered Bangalore as a viable option, but concerns arose when it was pointed out that a related case in Bangalore had been stayed, albeit with respect to a co-accused. The court is yet to finalize the location for the trials.
The bench also granted Stalin an exemption from personal appearances before the trial courts handling the cases, allowing him to be represented by an authorized representative instead. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and P. Wilson, who represented Stalin, argued that their client faces serious threats to his life and that criminal proceedings had been initiated against him in Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Bihar, Maharashtra, and the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Following a brief hearing, the Supreme Court bench issued an order and scheduled the next hearing for three months later, in the week commencing November 18, 2024. The order stated, “Issue notice to the respondents in terms of the amended writ petition returnable in the week commencing 18.11.2024. The petitioner may appear through an Authorized Representative before the courts concerned and would be granted exemption from personal appearance. Reply may be filed within four weeks from the date of service.”
During the hearing on August 14, Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed the complexities involved in consolidating cases under Section 406 CrPC, particularly when they are spread across different states. He noted, “Section 406 may help, but these are in different states. We will have to do that. Section 406 we are permitting if it is in the same High Court, but there is a difficulty. One is, separate offenses. One is the same offense, but different complaints. Different charges also in a complaint. That is to be treated separately.”
Justice Khanna emphasized the challenge of dealing with cases where multiple complaints and charges are filed for the same offense, citing the example of Section 420 cases where separate complaints may be lodged each time a deposit is made.
In response to Stalin’s plea, the Supreme Court issued a notice on May 10, seeking responses from various state governments regarding the consolidation of FIRs. The court also exempted Stalin from personal appearances before trial courts, allowing him to be represented by an authorized representative instead. The bench, comprising Justice Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta, granted time for all subsequent events to be included by filing an application seeking amendment in the petition.
In a related development, the Madras High Court in March refused to issue a writ of quo warranto against Udhayanidhi Stalin, Minister PK Sekar Babu, and DMK MP A. Raja, following petitions questioning their right to hold office over the controversial remarks on Sanatana Dharma. The court observed that individuals holding high posts must act responsibly and verify historical events before making public statements. The single judge noted that the comments made by the Tamil Nadu ministers were “divisive” and contrary to Constitutional principles.
Comments