“Will not take it up, follow Standard Process”: CJI bench refuses to take up plea against Udhaynidhi Stalin’s Sanatan Dharma remarks

Read Time: 06 minutes


The plea states that if the Tamil Nadu police had indeed granted permission, they have the responsibility and duty to inform to this Court whether there was *political interference* to the police department in granting such permission” as conference against Sanathan Dharma called for eradication of it

A CJI DY Chandrachud led bench of the Supreme Court today refused to urgently hear a PIL filed against Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin over his recent remarks made on 'Sanatan Dharma'.

The CJI refused to hear the plea filed by a Madras High Court lawyer saying that he had not come under the urgent mentioning list and he had to follow the Standard Operating Procedure circulated by the court.

In his plea, the lawyer has sought that the participation of the State Ministers in the meeting titled “Sanatana Dharma Eradication conference” held on September 2, 2023 be declared as unconstitutional & violative of Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India.

Additionally, a direction is sought that the Director General of Police of the State of Tamil Nadu immediately Registers First Information Report against the organisers of the said conference & the perpetrators of Hate speech including Stalin, PK Sekar Babu & Peter Alphonse.

Earlier this month, a plea was filed in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the police, for registering an FIR against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin's son Udhayanidhi and former Union Minister A Raja for their "derogatory remarks" and call for "eradication of Sanatan Dharma".

Advocate Vineet Jindal has thus filed an interlocutory application in the writ petition filed by Shaheen Abdullah in which the Supreme Court had April 28, 2023 has directed all States/UTs to register suo motu FIRs in offences such as Section 153A, 153B, 295A and 506 of IPC etc, without any complaint being filed. The court had also then clarified that the action would be taken in cases of hate speech, irrespective of the religion of the person who made the speech.

The application filed through advocate Raj Kishore Chaudhary also cited the SC's direction which had then stated, "We make it clear that any hesitation to act in accordance with this direction will be viewed as contempt of this Court and appropriate action will  be taken against the erring officers".

Recently, a group of former judges, retired bureaucrats and Army veterans have written a letter to Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud seeking suo motu contempt action against Tamil Nadu government over its failure to act upon the "hate speech" made by Udhayanidhi about the 'Sanatan Dharma'.

On September 5, former judges, government officials and war veterans have written to the Chief Justice of India, requesting him to take suo moto cognizance of the hate speech made by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin on 'Sanatan Dharma', basis the order passed in the Shaheen Abdulla case. CJI Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud has been told that Stalin Jr.'s comments could incite communal disharmony and sectarian violence.

Case Title: B Jagannath vs. State of Tamil Nadu