A sub-application has been filed in the Madras High Court urging it to call for video footage, from a Tamil television news channel, of a conference organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association in Chennai on September 2, 2023 when Sports Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin batted for the annihilation of Sanatana Dharma in the presence of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Minister P.K. Sekarbabu.
The sub-application was listed for hearing before Justice Anita Sumanth on Tuesday, along with another sub-application seeking a direction to a YouTube channel to produce the video recording of a DMK booth agents’ meeting held at Udhagamandalam on September 21, 2023 when Member of Parliament A. Raja, too, had spoken in favour of the eradication of Sanatana Dharma.
Apart from these, two more sub-applications had been filed urging the court to replace the Special Secretary, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly with the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly as the respondent in the writ of quo warranto petitions filed against the two Ministers, questioning the authority under which they were continuing to be legislators despite having participated in the conference against Sanatana Dharma.
The judge granted time till November 7 for Advocate-General R. Shunmugasundaram and Senior Counsel P. Wilson, R. Viduthalai and N. Jothi, representing the Ministers and the MP, to file their counter-affidavits to the sub-applications taken out by Hindu Munnani office-bearers T. Manohar, J. Kishore Kumar and V.P. Jayakumar, who stated that they had filed the writ petitions in their personal capacity and not as office-bearers of the organisation.
During the course of arguments on Tuesday, Mr. Wilson told the judge that the writ petitioners had filed the sub-applications to amend the cause title only after he pointed out during the previous hearing that the Special Secretary was an officer subordinate to the Assembly Secretary and, therefore, not a proper party to the case. He said the petitioners should have approached the court with evidence, and not scout for it after filing the case.
When the judge sought to know why the Ministers could not produce the entire video of the event in order to assist the court in deciding the matter, Mr. Wilson said they were only participants and not the organisers. He also referred to Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which provides immunity against self-incrimination, and said it was the duty of the petitioners to approach the court with all materials to support their case.
The Senior Counsel also accused the BJP of politicising the proceedings in the case and conducting a parallel trial on social media. He said the details of the hearings were being misreported on Twitter by BJP State president Annamalai and others. However, the judge told him that she would decide the case only on the basis of arguments advanced before her, and would never allow the politicisation of court proceedings.
