E-Paper
HC dismisses ‘quo warranto’ pleas against Tamil Nadu minister, two others
A writ of quo warranto is a common law remedy that is used to challenge a person’s right to hold a public or corporate office. Sanatana Dharma refers to a set of duties and way of living as prescribed in the Hindu religion
Chennai The Madras high court on Wednesday refused to issue a writ of ‘quo warranto’ against Tamil Nadu minister Udhayanidhi Stalin and two others on petitions questioning their right to hold office over controversial comments made on Sanatana Dharma last year, but observed that people holding high posts must act more responsibly and verify historical events before making remarks.
A writ of quo warranto is a common law remedy that is used to challenge a person’s right to hold a public or corporate office. Sanatana Dharma refers to a set of duties and way of living as prescribed in the Hindu religion.
Justice Anita Sumanth disposed of the petitions filed by Hindu Munnani office bearers against Udhayanidhi, who is the son of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam chief and Tamil Nadu chief minister MK Stalin, minister for Hindu religious and charitable endowments (HR&CE) Sekar Babu and Member of Parliament A Raja, questioning their right to hold office after their remarks on Sanatana Dharma last year.
“While the petition against Stalin is maintainable, court can’t issue a writ of quo warranto as no action under law has been taken against the minister that can cause him to be disqualified,” the high court said, according to Bar and Bench.
The judge also said that making unverified claims on Sanatana Dharma amounted to spreading misinformation.
“Those holding constitutional positions can propound only one principle. And that is the principle of constitutionalism. Making unverified claims on Sanatana Dharma tantamounts to spreading misinformation,” she said.
The developments came two days after the Supreme Court pulled up Udhayanidhi for “abusing” his right to freedom of speech through his remarks and said that being a minister, he should have been more careful with his statements and mindful of the possible consequences they could have.
On September 2 last year, Udhayanidhi triggered a controversy at an event in Chennai, saying that Sanatana Dharma was against social justice and equality, and should be “eradicated”.
He also likened Sanatana Dharma to the coronavirus, malaria and dengue, and said it should be destroyed. Babu was on the stage with Udhayanidhi when the latter made the remarks. Later, Raja also came out in support of Udhayanidhi and compared Sanatana Dharma to diseases.
All the remarks came under severe criticism from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), as Union home minister Amit Shah accused the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) of insulting Sanatana Dharma for vote bank politics and alleged such a remark by an Opposition leader was not made for the first time. Later, Ayodhya seer Paramhans Acharya announced a reward of ₹10 crore for beheading Udhayanidhi.
Appearing for Udhayanidhi, senior counsel P Wilson said his client called for the eradication of contentious principles under Sanatana Dharma that discriminate among people, and added that the minister had not breached his oath of office through his remarks.
But the court questioned if Udhayanidhi had carried out any research before making such comments. “Though there may be ideological differences between leaders of different political parties, any statements made should be constructive and not destructive of any faith,” justice Sumanth said.
