Read Time: 07 minutes
Stalin, a serving Minister in the Tamil Nadu State Government, while addressing a press conference in Chennai stated: “Few things cannot be opposed, they should be abolished. We can’t oppose dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or corona, we have to eradicate them. In the same way, we have to eradicate the Sanatana (Sanatan Dharma), rather than opposing it"
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday, March 6, declined to comment on Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader Udhayanidhi Stalin’s controversial remarks against Sanatana Dharma.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna said, "We, as the Apex Court, would not like to comment on any words that may have an impact on the trial."
The bench made this observation while hearing Stalin’s plea seeking the consolidation of multiple criminal cases filed against him across different states and transferring the complaints to one place.
During the hearing, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, while countering submissions made by Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing Stalin, argued: "...My learned friend has given examples, and therefore, allow me to say something. I am appearing for the State of Maharashtra. Lordship, this was a Sanatana Dharma Eradication Conference. Allow me 5 minutes....Why are they ashamed of what is being said? They say, the Deputy Chief Minister says that some things must be eradicated—like mosquitoes, corona, and dengue fever. If a CM of another state had said that a particular religion should be eradicated, what would have happened?"
Cases involving Arnab Goswami, Nupur Sharma, and Mohammed Zubair were cited by Sr Adv Singhvi to argue that in all these instances, cases had been consolidated and transferred to a single jurisdiction.
When SG Mehta raised concerns about ensuring equal treatment in similar cases, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna clarified that the bench was not commenting on the merits of the case.
At this point, SG Tushar Mehta argued:
"Merely because a community which is sought to be eradicated here doesn’t react in a violent way by threatening…"
Senior Advocate P. Wilson, also representing Stalin, interjected:
"I will take the learned SG to my soil, Tamil Nadu."
To this, SG Mehta clarified:
"I am not against Tamil Nadu; I am against these words, irresponsible words".
Following the arguments, the bench, also comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar, directed that no new criminal cases be registered against Stalin over his remarks on Sanatana Dharma without prior court permission.
The court ordered:
" Issue notice to the newly added respondents, upon steps being taken by the petitioner within seven days. Service shall be effective by all modes. Liberty is granted to the newly added respondents to file their responses within 15 days from the date of service. The rejoinder shall be filed within 15 days after service. Re-list in the week commencing April 28, 2025. The interim order shall continue and will apply to the cases now mentioned in the amended petition.We also deem it appropriate to direct that no further cases shall be registered without the permission of this court."
During the hearing, Sr Adv Singhvi informed the court that a fresh First Information Report (FIR) had been registered in Bihar. "In light of this, My Lords had observed that the matter would be considered for transfer—if not to Tamil Nadu, then to Karnataka. Now, look at this chart: A new case has been filed in Bihar," he pleaded.
Case Title: Udhayanidhi Stalin v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors
Please Login or Register
