No new case to be registered against Udhayanidhi Stalin over Sanatan remark: SC
Several FIRs were filed across the country against Tamil Nadu deputy chief minister over his remarks at a Chennai event on the topic ‘Eradication of Sanatan’
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed that no new case should be registered against Tamil Nadu deputy chief minister Udhayanidhi Stalin over his controversial remarks against ‘Sanatan dharma’ and extended protection against his arrest in fresh cases lodged against him till the next hearing on his petition to club all cases against him at a single place.
“We deem it appropriate that no further cases shall be registered without permission of this court,” a bench comprising of justice Sanjay Kumar and headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, said.
Several first information reports (FIRs) were filed in different parts of the country, including Maharashtra, Bihar, Jammu, and Karnataka, against the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader following his remarks at an event in September 2023 in Chennai, organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists association on the topic ‘Eradication of Sanatan’.
Also read: Udhayanidhi flags off Jallikattu
Stalin, the son of Tamil Nadu chief minister MK Stalin, said that in November of last year, the court had suggested that all cases might preferably be transferred to Karnataka. Since then, fresh criminal cases have been filed against him concerning the same remarks on ‘Sanatan Dharma’ made in September 2023.
In his application seeking protection from arrest in the new cases, senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and P. Wilson, representing Stalin, highlighted that cases are pending against him in Patna, Jammu, Bengaluru, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh.
“On the previous date, court had indicated transferring all cases to Karnataka. In past cases involving journalist Arnab Goswami and BJP leader Nupur Sharma, this court had passed similar orders transferring cases to one place,” Singhvi said.
Also Read: ‘Sanatana Dharma’ remark: SC exempts Udhayanidhi Stalin from appearing in courts
The bench issued notice to the complainants in the fresh cases lodged against Stalin. “Interim orders to continue. The order will equally apply to cases now mentioned,” it said.
The court posted the matter in the week commencing April 21 seeking response from the private complainants.
“If the chief minister of another state would have said this about another religion that... let Islam be eradicated...would this be tolerated? Just because a community does not react violently. This gentleman is a deputy CM and these are irresponsible words,” said solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Maharashtra government, told the court.
Mehta said that the Supreme Court is hearing another case related to hate speech, where previous orders have directed the registration of FIRs against individuals making offensive remarks against the Muslim community. “Let this matter be heard along with that case,” he added.
Also Read: Let’s wait and see: TN deputy CM on Pawan Kalyan’s attack over Sanatana Dharma remarks
The bench told Mehta that it does not wish to go into the merits of the statement made by Stalin. “We are not going into merits. We have a limited issue before us to have all cases heard at one place,” the court said, adding “We are aware of that matter you are talking about. In that case, applications were filed by different parties. We never came into the picture...That case is dealing with a larger issue.”
Stalin’s 2023 statement that created an uproar was --- There are some things that we have to eradicate and we can’t merely oppose. Mosquitoes, dengue, corona and malaria are things that we cannot oppose, we have to eradicate them. Sanatanam is also like this. Eradication and not opposing Sanatanam has to be our first task.
Stalin filed a petition earlier under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming violation of his fundamental rights and sought clubbing of FIRs against him pending in various states.
Also Read: ‘Sanatana Dharma’ row: Tamil Nadu minister’s statements were divisive, says HC
The petition said that the Constitution permits him under Article 19(1)(a) (right to freedom of speech and expression of the Constitution) to speak about the evils of caste discrimination while Article 25 (freedom of conscience, the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion) guarantees the right to question the very existence of God, religion and religious dogmas.
The court in March last year had objected to this stand taken by the petitioner and said, “You abuse your right under Article 19(1)(a). You abuse your right under Article 25. And now you are exercising your right under Article 32 (to file a plea in the Supreme Court directly)? Do you not know the consequences of what you said?”
In August last year, the top court had permitted Stalin to appear through his authorised representative in the trial, granting him exemption from personal appearance.
