The Madras High Court on Wednesday observed that the statements made against Sanatana Dharma last year by Tamil Nadu Youth Welfare and Sports Development Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin and Nilgiris MP A. Raja were “perverse, divisive, contrary to constitutional principles and ideas and also tantamount to gross dis/misinformation.”
Also read: Udhayanidhi Stalin | Dravidian scion
However, the court’s observations came even as it disposed of a batch of writ petitions seeking the removal of the two Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) legislators, holding that the demand was premature as neither of the two leaders has yet been convicted of any crime with regard to their statements.
‘Only Consitutional morality’
“By equating Sanatana Dharma to HIV, AIDS, leprosy, malaria and Corona, the individual respondents (Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin and Mr. Raja) have revealed an alarming lack of understanding of Hinduism,” wrote Justice Anita Sumanth. “Statements made in public by sitting Ministers and Members of Parliament must be factually and historically accurate,” she said.
The judge added: “While there may be ideological differences between persons holding power, the differences are expected to be based on a thorough understanding of the system being critiqued and importantly to be constructive and not destructive of any faith.”
“Whatever may be their personal ideology, members holding constitutional positions can espouse only one morality and that is the morality propounded by the Constitution,” she said.
‘Participation connotes endorsement’
Justice Sumanth criticised Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department Minister P.K. Sekarbabu as well, though it was argued that he had only attended the ‘Sanatana Dharma Eradication Convention’ organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers & Artists Association in Chennai on September 2, 2023 but did not address the meet.
“The factum of participation by itself connotes endorsement of the theme and purpose of the convention which militates violently with his constitutional position as well as his position as the avowed benefactor of Hindu religious endowments,” she observed.
Premature plea
The judge said that the writ of quo warranto petitions filed against the two Ministers and the MP — which questions the authority under which they were holding the positions — were certainly maintainable, but held that the plea to issue such a writ was premature at the present stage since they were yet to be convicted in any criminal case.
She noted that the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 identify specific instances of conviction that would attract disqualification. However, in the present instance, though first information reports (FIRs) are pending in various States regarding the offending statement, there has not been any conviction till date.
“Thus, the relief of quo warranto as sought for by the petitioners is premature as no cause of action arises at this juncture for such issuance. The relief sought for, thus, cannot be granted. All the writ petitions are disposed,” the judge concluded.
‘Must not influence trial courts’
After the judgement was pronounced in open court, senior counsel P. Wilson, representing Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin, urged the judge to make it clear in writing that the criminal cases pending against his client must be decided by the trial courts concerned without being influenced by any of the observations made by her while disposing of the present writ petitions.
“Why would it [influence the trial courts]? Because it is a question of evidence. No, no. They [the trial courts] will not be carried away, Sir,” the judge told him initially. However, when he persisted, she agreed to consider his request.
‘Offended the majority’
The office-bearers of a Hindu outfit — T. Manohar, J. Kishore Kumar, and V.P. Jayakumar — had filed the three writ petitions in their individual capacity. The petitioners had contended that elected legislators in the country could not act against Sanatana Dharma, which is followed by a majority of the people.
Asserting that Sanatana Dharma was synonymous with Hinduism, the first petitioner said that Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin ought not to have called for its annihilation by equating it with malaria and dengue in his speech at the convention.
The second petitioner took objection to the participation of Mr. Sekarbabu in the conference, even though the Minister did not deliver any speech on the subject. The third petitioner stated that Mr. Raja had endorsed the views of Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin at a different meeting, and gone ahead to equate Sanatana Dharma with HIV and AIDS.
Questioned plea’s maintainability
The Ministers and the MP, on the other hand, questioned the very maintainability of the writ petitions and contended that no writ of quo warranto could be issued for the reasons stated by the petitioners in their affidavits.
The judge, however, had insisted on hearing the matter both on the question of maintainability as well as on merits. After hearing marathon arguments advanced by senior counsel T.V. Ramanujam, G. Rajagopalan, and G. Karthikeyan for the writ petitioners and Mr. Wilson, R. Viduthalai, and N. Jothi for the legislators on different days since October last year, she had reserved her verdict on December 21, 2023.
