TN Assembly: Fresh Contempt Plea In Supreme Court Against Udhayanidhi Stalin Over ‘Sanatana Dharma’ Remark

The application has been filed by Advocate Amita Sachdeva in an ongoing contempt petition initiated in 2023 over alleged inaction by the Delhi Police against hate speech complaints relating to Stalin’s earlier remarks on Sanatana Dharma.

According to the plea filed through AoR Vishnu Shankar Jain despite directions issued by the Supreme Court on April 28, 2023 directing all States and Union Territories to take suo motu action against hate speech incidents, no effective action was taken over the statements made by Stalin in September 2023.

The contempt matter was taken up by the apex court on April 29, 2026, when notice was issued and responses were sought from the authorities.

Now, the petitioner has sought permission to place additional documents and media reports on record regarding Stalin’s latest statement made on May 12, 2026 inside the Tamil Nadu Assembly.

The application states that while participating in Assembly proceedings on May 12, Stalin allegedly remarked: “Sanatana Dharma, which divides people, must certainly be abolished.”

The petitioner has argued that the statement is substantially similar to the controversial remarks made by Stalin in 2023, which are already under challenge before the Supreme Court. The plea claims the statement was made deliberately during the first session of the newly constituted Assembly and in the presence of the new Chief Minister, making it a conscious and public reiteration of the earlier remarks.

According to the application, Stalin knowingly chose to make the statement on the floor of the Legislative Assembly while being aware that legislative speech may receive constitutional protection under Article 194(2) of the Constitution. The petitioner has alleged that this reflected “persistent hostility” towards Sanatana Dharma and demonstrated “wilful and contumacious disregard” of the ongoing proceedings before the Supreme Court. The application also referred to earlier observations made by the Supreme Court while hearing Stalin’s plea seeking consolidation of FIRs registered against him over his 2023 remarks.

The plea states that during the hearing in March 2024, the Supreme Court had orally observed that Stalin, being a Minister, should be conscious of the consequences of such statements and had allegedly remarked that he was abusing his rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution. The petitioner has further relied upon a March 6, 2024 judgment of the Madras High Court, which reportedly described similar remarks made by Stalin as “perverse, divisive and contrary to constitutional principles.”

According to the application, the Madras High Court had observed that the statements amounted to hate speech against Hindus and “spew hate against a particular community.” The petitioner has annexed multiple news reports regarding Stalin’s latest remarks, including reports published by The Times of India and OpIndia.

The plea argues that these additional documents are necessary for proper adjudication of the contempt proceedings and to bring to the Court’s attention Stalin’s conduct during the pendency of the matter. The petitioner has sought a direction from the Supreme Court to formally take the additional documents and reports on record while considering the contempt case.

Notably, in January, this year, the Court had dismissed a plea by Vineet Jindal seeking a direction to the police to register an FIR against Udhayanidhi, and former Union Minister A. Raja for their "derogatory remarks" and call for the "eradication of Sanatan Dharma".