What Research Done To Understand 'Sanatana Dharma'? Madras High Court Asks Udhayanidhi Stalin To Produce Texts

The Madras High Court on Wednesday asked the Tamil Nadu Sports and Youth Development Minister Udayanidhi Stalin what research he had done to understand  'Sanatana Dharma' before making recent controversial remarks against it.

Justice Anita Sumanth was hearing the Quo Warranto pleas seeking to show under what authority Sports Minister Udayanidhi Stalin, HRCW Minister Sekar Babu, and MP A. Raja are continuing to hold public office in light of their recent remarks on 'Sanatana Dharma'. The court has also directed the Ministers to submit the text of the their speeches.

The petitioners had previously argued that though the constitution gave a person freedom of speech and expression, the freedom could not be used to speak against someone else’s fundamental right to practice and profess a religion. It was also submitted that the Ministers/MP have violated the principles of Fundamental Duties enumerated under Article 51-A (c) (e) of the Constitution which casts a duty on every person to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India and to promote harmony and spirit of brotherhood among all people.

The petitioners had also submitted that the entire crux of Sanatana Dharma was based on Hindu religion and principles. Remarking that Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma was one and the same, they added that the Ministers/MP could not escape by saying that they talked only about Sanatana Dharma and not about Hinduism.

On the other hand, Udhayanidhi submitted that he had no intention to belittle or disrespect any religion and that he was only against the religious practices that discriminated against people. He also submitted that being one of the torchbearers of the Dravidian movement, he was expected to adhere to and propagate the Dravidian principles which speak of self-respect, equality, rational thought, and brotherhood. He further submitted that the petitioners, who belonged to a party affiliated with the BJP, were attempting to use the court as a battleground for a political/ social debate without any legal question. He had also argued that he should not be expected to produce the alleged text of the speech as that would be a violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 

Senior Advocate P Wilson, appearing for Udayanidhi also submitted that Udayanidhi's speech was based on texts of Dr Ambedkar's speeches where he had called for the eradication of the Varnashrama dharma from which the caste system emerged and based on the texts published by the Banaras Hindu University between 1902 and 1937. He further informed the court that Udayanidhi had only called for the eradication of the problematic principles in Sanatana Dharma like the Varnashrama Dharma which found its base in the Manusmriti and created a caste divide that was so deep that even the President of the country was not spared from it.

To this, the judge asked Wilson to give a copy of the texts published by the University based on which Udhayanidhi had equated Sanatana Dharma with Varnashrama Dharma. 

Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Minister Sekar Babu, arguing on the same grounds, submitted that the present pleas were filed only because he had taken steps to recover temple properties that were allegedly encroached by members belonging to the Hindu Munnani. Thus, it was argued that the petition was tainted with malafide. He also submitted that he had participated in the meeting only in support of the annihilation of the caste system and untouchability and to promote equality in society.

Case Title: T Manohar v Udhayanidhi Stalin and Another

Case No: WP 29205 of 2023