Madras High Court Deprecates Udhayanidhi Stalin's Comments Against 'Sanatana Dharma', Refuses To Direct His Removal As Minister

The court added that those holding constitutional positions should propound only constitutionalism and even if there were ideological differences between political leaders, any statement made publicly should be constructive and not destructive.

While holding that the writs were maintainable, the judge however said that no action had been taken against the Ministers which would disqualify them from holding the official posts and thus the pleas were premature. 

Observations by the Court

“By equating Sanatana Dharma to HIV AIDS, Leprosy, malaria and corona, the individual respondents have revealed an alarming lack of understanding of Hinduism.”

“Their statements are perverse, divisive and contrary to Constitutional principles and ideals and tantamount to gross dis or misinformation”.

"India is a democracy and the Constitution propounds a secular Government with equal freedom to all its citizens. Hate and divisiveness, particularly from the hands of the Government, is anathema to such freedom, and assume a seriousness bordering on danger."

The High Court said that the comments of Udhayanidhi Stalin, A Raja etc amount to “hate against members of a specific community”. Constitutional functionaries can't vow to annihilate a section of their own people who follow a particular faith, the Court added.

"The individual respondents have undoubtedly acted contrary to Constitutional principles and ideals and their statements amount to disinformation and hate against members of a specific community.

 Seen in this backdrop, the question that arises is as to whether it is contrary to Constitutional ideals principles for Constitutional functionaries to vow to annihilate a section of their own people who follow a particular faith, and whether such statements violate the promise of secular values under the Constitution? The answer is unambiguously in the affirmative."

Background

The orders were passed on quo warranto pleas filed by office bearers of Hindu Munnani Organisation- T Manohar, Kishore Kumar, and VP Jayakumar in their personal capacity. The court had also, during the hearing, asked the Ministers what research was done to understand Sanatana Dharma before making the controversial remarks against it. The court also directed the Ministers to submit the texts of their speech and the texts of the materials relied upon by the Minister based on which he had equated Sanatana Dharma with Varnashrama Dharma which created a caste divide.

The petitioners had argued that the Ministers/MP had 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. It was argued that when the duties are mandatory on every citizen, a person holding the post of Minister has more responsibility and is much more bound by the Constitution. It was also argued that calling for the eradication of religion was violative of Article 25 of the Constitution.

Stalin, on the other hand, argued that he had no intention to belittle or disrespect any religion and was only against the religious practices that discriminated against people. He also argued that Article 25 guaranteed not only the right to practice and profess religion but also the freedom to not believe in god and profess atheism.

Minister Sekar Babu also countered the plea and argued that the pleas were filed only because he had taken steps to recover temple properties that were allegedly encroached on 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 in support of the annihilation of the caste system and untouchability and to promote equality in society.

MP A Raja argued that the freedom of speech and expression was placed much above the freedom of religion. It was argued that Article 19(1)(a) encompasses a wide spectrum of elements beyond just mere dissemination of information and positive ideals but also allowed fostering meaningful dialogue among the citizens for development.

Also Read - 'Abuse Of Article 19, 25 Rights' : Supreme Court Expresses Displeasure At TN Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin's Comments On 'Sanatana Dharma

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 98

Case Title: T Manohar v Udhayanidhi Stalin and Another

Case No: WP 29205 of 2023