The Madras High Court on Thursday reserved its judgement on writ of quo warranto petitions filed against Sports Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Minister P.K. Sekarbabu and the Nilgiris Member of Parliament A. Raja, in connection with the Sanatana Dharma row.
Justice Anita Sumanth deferred her verdict after the submission of written arguments and completion of oral arguments by Senior Counsel T.V. Ramanujam, G. Rajagopal and G. Karthikeyan for the petitioners, and Senior Counsel P. Wilson, N. Jothi and R. Viduthalai for the Ministers and the MP respectively.
Hindu Munnani office-bearers T. Manohar, J. Kishore Kumar and V.P. Jayakumar had filed the three writ petitions by making it clear that they had filed the cases in their individual capacity and not as office-bearers of the organisation.
They claimed that elected legislators cannot act against Sanatana Dharma.
Asserting that Sanatana Dharma was synonymous with Hinduism, the first petitioner said Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin ought not to have called for the annihilation of the dharma in the ‘Sanatana Dharma Eradication Conference’ organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association in Chennai, on September 2, 2023.
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 in a different meeting and, hence, he, too, cannot continue as a legislator.
The Ministers and the MP, on the other hand, questioned the maintainability of the writ petitions and contended that no writ of quo warranto, which questioned the authority under which they were continuing as legislators, could be issued for the reasons stated by the petitioners in their affidavits.
The Judge, however, insisted on hearing the matter both on the question of maintainability as well as on merits. After marathon arguments on different days since October this year, she reserved her verdict after the Senior Counsels completed the submission of oral arguments as well as written arguments.
