Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court on Wednesday criticised the remarks made by Tamil Nadu Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development Udhayanidhi Stalin and Member of Parliament A Raja on Sanatan Dharma.

Justice Anita Sumanth, while refusing to issue a writ of quo warranto against Udhayanidhi Stalin, HRCE Minister PK Sekarbabu, and A Raja, for their remarks against Sanatan Dharma, delivered stern criticism against their actions.

While speaking at an event called the 'Sanatana Abolition Conference', Udhayanidhi on September 2, 2023, had called for annihilation of Sanatana Dharma.

He had said, "Some we must abolish and cannot resist. We should not resist mosquitoes, dengue, fever, malaria, corona and so should we eradicate them That is how this Sanatana is. The first thing we need to do is to eradicate Sanatana rather than oppose it".

MP A Raja was also a speaker at the event. He also called Sanatana a miserable disease. "I find it strange that Udhayanidhi Stalin said it very gently. That it should be eradicated like malaria and dengue. Malaria and dengue don’t have a social stigma that society doesn’t look at as disgusting. To compare Sanatana with abomination, there was once leprosy and HIV," Raja had said.

Though P.K. Sekar Babu was also present at the convention, he did not speak there. However, he expressed solidarity with the sentiments expressed by Stalin in a press meet on September 6, 2023.

In her judgment on the quo warranto petitions calling upon Stalin, Sekar Babu, and A Raja to show cause under what authority of law they were holding Constitutional posts in the Tamil Nadu Government after their remarks against Sanatana, the judge noted, 

"By equating Sanatana Dharma to HIV AIDS, Leprosy, malaria and corona, the individual respondents have revealed an alarming lack of understanding of Hinduism. Their statements are perverse, divisive and contrary to Constitutional principles and ideals and tantamount to gross dis or misinformation." 

She wrote, 

"...the question that arises is as to whether it is contrary to Constitutional ideals principles for Constitutional functionaries to vow to annihilate a section of their own people who follow a particular faith, and whether such statements violate the promise of secular values under the Constitution? The answer is unambiguously in the affirmative."

Justice Sumanth, regarding Stalin's defence for his remarks that they were not intended to oppose Hinduism, instead, he was simply urging to bring an end to caste-based discriminatory practices, said, 

"This Court agrees unequivocally that there are inequities based on caste present in society today and that they are to be eschewed. However, the origins of the caste system as we know it today are less than a century old...Can one lay the blame for these torturous circumstances entirely on the ancient Varna system? The answer is emphatically in the negative."

She said that if the leaders in a State wish to lead an egalitarian land with equal sharing of resources among all the people, they must set an example by exhibiting fairness in approach, moderation in speech and a sincere desire to understand the differences between their people.

She further emphasised that "there is a fine balance between speaking one’s mind and having the freedom to do so".

"The respondents have urged that the freedom to practice religion guaranteed under Article 25 is subservient to other freedoms including freedom of speech as guaranteed under Article 19. This cannot, however, be taken as a sanction for unconstitutional, insensitive and erroneous statements, derogatory of particular faith, particularly from those holding Constitutional posts," the judge underscored. 

However, Justice Sumanth asserted that as far as the writ of quo warranto was concerned, the prayer for it was premature as no cause of action arose at the present juncture of time for such issuance.

"My conclusions in the paragraphs supra are unambiguous that the offending statements spew hate against a particular community, the Hindus and constitute dis/misinformation. However, these conclusions cannot be stretched so as to justify a writ of quo warranto as I would then be reading into the Constitution and the provisions of the RP Act, the disqualification of hate speech and perpetration of mis/disinformation," the judge held. 

The judge said that a disqualification fastened upon a candidate can be under the list of disqualifications enumerated under Sections 8 to 11A of the RP Act only ‘and on no other ground'.

She further pointed out that multifarious actions as against the offending statements of the three had already been initiated and the matter had been raised before the Supreme Court as well. 

"A petition seeking disqualification is also stated to be pending before the Governor. All the more for the reason that the appropriate authority under the Constitution has been approached in this matter, it must be left to that authority to decide the issue on disqualification having regard to all appropriate parameters," the judge held. 

Case Title: Kishore Kumar v P.K.Sekar Babu and Another with connected matters