Sanatana Dharma Row | Minister Calling For Eradication Of Religion Against Article 25: Argument In Madras HC Against Udhayanidhi Holding Public Office

When Justice Anitha Sumanth asked if Udhayanidhi’s speeches could be considered as part of free speech, Senior Advocate Ramanujam submitted that being a Minister, Udhayanidhi could not have made such remarks and that the State calling for eradication of a religion will be violative of Article 25 of the Constitution.

The senior counsel argued that as per the Constitution, every person had the freedom to practice and profess a religion and when he had the freedom to follow Sanatana Dharma, no one could call to eradicate it.

“Constitution gives freedom of religion. I'm entitled to follow Sanatana Dharma, no one can call to eradicate it. He's a minister. How can the state call for eradication. It is gross violation of Article 25. He cannot commit fraud on constitution and try to escape. He should not be sitting in public office,” Ramanujam said.

The petitions have been filed by office bearers of Hindu Munnani Organisation - T Manohar, Kishore Kumar and VP Jayakumar in their personal capacity. The petition says 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 also submitted 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.

Senior Advocate R Rajagopal, making a submission on behalf of Kishore Kumar and against Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Sekar Babu, submitted that once a person was elected to a public office, he was not just an individual but represented people belonging to different religions.

Relying upon the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1959, Rajagopal argued that as per the Act, every officer or servant appointed to carry out the purpose of the Act was to be a person professing the Hindu Religion and should cease to hold the office when he ceases to profess the religion. He further submitted that as per the Act, the officers were to observe appropriate forms and ceremonies of the religion. Thus, he argued that when the Minister had participated in a conference calling for the eradication of the Sanatana Dharma, he was not fit to continue holding the office.

Rajagopal further submitted that the statements have not been denied and even after making the statements, Udhayanidhi had stood by his statement. He added that the Supreme Court had also taken cognisance of the issue and even if there was a provision for sending the matter to the Governor, it did not take away the petitioner’s right to approach the court.

Senior Advocate Karthikeyan, also appearing for one of the petitioner 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, he added that the Ministers/MP could not escape by saying that they talked only about Sanatana Dharma and not about Hinduism.

Removal Can Only Be Done Only By Governor

Questioning the maintainability of the petitions, Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram submitted that the remedy to remove a Minister from office could not be exercised by way of a quo warranto writ. He submitted that the removal can only be done by the Governor and the court could not issue directions in this regard.

The AG also submitted that as per the provisions of the Constitution, the Ministers were to hold office during the pleasure of the Governor and as long as such pleasure was not withdrawn, they would continue to be in office.

Taking the court through Articles 191 and 192 of the Constitution, the AG submitted that when specific provisions are given in the Constitution for removal/disqualification, a quo warranto could not be issued to remove them from office unless they were otherwise disqualified.

Senior Advocates P Wilson and N Jothi appearing for the respondent Ministers/MP questioned the maintainability of the petition and the manner in which the impugned speeches were submitted to the court in a pen drive.

While Jothi argued that pen drive has not been recognized as valid evidence as per the High Court rules and thus could not be played, Wilson argued that the Supreme Court had observed that pen drives could not be submitted as such and thus objected to its acceptance by the court.

The court directed the respondents to file counters. Though Senior Advocate P Wilson objected to filing counter by saying that by doing so he will be subjecting himself to the merits of the case, Justice Anita Sumnath clarified that she was not willing to make any “peacemeal” orders and give separate orders on maintainability.

Case Title: T Manohar v Udhayanidhi Stalin and Another

Case No: WP 29205 of 2023