E-Paper
SC admits 2nd plea for action against Udayanidhi Stalin over Sanatana comments
The Tamil Nadu government called the pleas against Udayanidhi Stalin over his comment on eradicating Sanatana Dharma “publicity interest litigation” which should be discouraged
The Supreme Court has admitted a second petition seeking action against Tamil Nadu minister Udayanidhi Stalin over his comment on eradicating Sanatana Dharma even as the government of the southern state called the pleas “publicity interest litigation” which should be discouraged.
“We are not issuing notice but will simply tag it,” said a bench of justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi on Wednesday while hearing lawyer Vineet Jindal’s public interest litigation (PIL).
Jindal sought registration of a criminal case against Stalin for his comments that Sanatan Dharma was against social justice and should be eradicated.
The court last week issued notice on the first petition. Madras high court lawyer B Jagannath was the first to move the Supreme Court against Stalin’s comments.
Tamil Nadu’s additional advocate general Amit Anand Tiwari opposed the second petition. “These are publicity interest litigations. If such petitions were to be entertained, there would be nearly 30-40 petitions in different high courts. It becomes very difficult for the state.” Tiwari said it was unfortunate how such petitions are circulated in the media for publicity.
The bench told the state that there are remedies provided under the Constitution.
Jindal’s lawyer, Raj Kishor Chaudhary, told the court that it was surprising how the state was trying to defend Stalin’s statement. “We have come against a genocidal call made by the state.”
The bench agreed to examine Jindal’s petition when the other matter comes up for hearing. Jindal has also filed a hate speech complaint with the Delhi Police.
The Supreme Court last week heard Jagannath’s petition and said such matters should be filed in the high court but agreed to examine the issue. Jagannath’s lawyer told the court that this was a classic case of hate speech where the state was “unleashing a tirade” against a particular religion and the police failed to act.
