'Sanatana Dharma' Is A Set Of Eternal Duties, Idea Being Gained That It's Only About Promoting Casteism & Untouchability: Madras High Court

“It has also broadly understood Sanathana Dharama as a set of 'eternal duties', and that it cannot be traced to one specific literature, but has to be gathered from multiple sources which, either relate to Hinduism, or which those who practice the Hindu way of life, have come to accept. It includes the duty to the nation, duty to the King, King's duty to his people, duty to one's parents and Gurus, care for the poor, and whole lot of other duties,” the court observed.

Justice N Seshasayee was hearing a challenge against a Circular issued by the Principal of Thiru Vi. Ka. Government Arts College requesting the girl students in the college to share their views on the topic “Opposition to Sanadhana” on the occasion of commemorating birth anniversary of former Tamil Nadu CM Annadurai.

“If the topic chosen by the impugned circular is now tested on the plane of these duties, it would then mean that all these duties are liable to be destroyed. Should not a citizen love his country? Is he not under a duty to serve his nation? Should not the parents be cared for? With genuine concern for what is going round, this Court could not help pondering over it,” the court wondered.

The court also noted that presently the idea that had been appearing was that Sanadhana Dharma is all about promoting casteism and untouchability. The court emphasised that untouchability, which has been abolished under Article 15 of the Constitution should not be tolerated even within or outside Sanadhana Dharma.

“Somewhere, an idea appears to have gained ground that Sanadhana Dharma is all about, and only about, promoting casteism and untouchability. Untouchability in a country of equal citizens, cannot be tolerated, and even if it is seen as permitted somewhere within the principles of 'Sanathana dharma', it still cannot have a space to stay, since Article 17 of the Constitution has declared that untouchability has been abolished…. Therefore, untouchability, either within or outside Sanatana Dharma can no longer be Constitutional though sadly it still exits,” the court stressed.

The court also observed that though Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution gave a fundamental right to free speech, it was important to underscore that one is adequately informed as it added value to what was being spoked. Adding that free speech was not an absolute right, the court noted that when free speech pertained to religion, it was necessary to ensure that no one is injured.

“Every religion is founded on faith, and faith by nature accommodates irrationality. Therefore, when free speech is exercised in matters pertaining to religion, it is necessary for one to ensure that no one is injured. In other words free speech cannot be hate speech, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned. The users of free speech must not ignore to factor these aspects while exercising their right. If this is ignored, the course of any debate will get derailed, and the objective behind it will lose significance,” the court said.

The court also opined that free speech should be used to encourage dispassionate, healthy debates and help the society to move forward without forgetting the ethos and values of the Constitution.

Since the impugned circular in the present case was already withdrawn, the court encouraged the College to instead make the students reflect on the evils of untouchability and how as citizens of the society, they could eliminate untouchability.

The remarks of the Court assume relevance in the background of the recent controversy triggered off by the comments made by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin against 'Sanathana Dharma'.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.G.Karthikeyan, Senior Counsel Assisted by D.Kamachi

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.C.Kathiravan Special Government Pleader

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 268

Case Title: Elangovan v The Secretary, Home Department

Case No: WP No. 27398 of 2023