The Supreme Court on Wednesday tagged a petition seeking criminal prosecution of DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin for his remarks on Sanatana Dharma with a similar plea filed earlier by another party.
A Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi said it would examine, on the next date, whether the petition needed to be entertained.
Tamil Nadu Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari said these were “publicity interest” petitions filed in the guise of public interest. He said about 40 writ petitions were filed in various High Courts across the country. He said it would be “impossible” for the State if more such petitions cropped up.
“Everyone is filing PILs for publicity, now they will go to the media and circulate this petition,” Mr. Tiwari said.
Advocate Raj Kishor Choudhary, appearing for petitioner, said a “genocidal call” was made in the State.
“We have not issued notice. Let it be tagged. We will see on that day,” Justice Trivedi said.
A few days ago, the same Bench had issued notice on a petition filed by advocate B. Jagannath, represented by advocate G. Balaji, seeking a direction to the Tamil Nadu Police to immediately register a First Information Report against Mr. Udhayanidhi and others who participated in the ‘Sanatana Dharma Eradication Conference’ held on September 2 in Chennai by an organisation called Tamil Nadu Murpoku Ezuthalar Sangam.
The petition also sought a CBI investigation into the incident and unearth “sources responsible for contribution of amount for such organisations and whether there is any element of terror funding involved from across the border”
“The conference was held specifically to target Hinduism [also referred as Sanatana Dharma] and to abuse, humiliate, speak in derogatory language and spread hatred towards Sanatana Dharma… These acts were first seen in Stalinist Russia for creation of gulags,” the petition had claimed.
The plea had also sought the court to direct the Tamil Nadu Police to submit a report as to how the conference was given police permission and why no action was taken against the organisers. It argued that the participation of State Ministers in the event was unconstitutional.
