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

The Supreme Court on Monday (March 4) expressed displeasure at Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin for his remarks about 'Sanatana Dharma'.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta was hearing a petition filed by Udhayanidhi Stalin seeking to club the first information reports (FIR) registered in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Jammu and Kashmir, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka over the DMK leader's controversial remarks.

As soon as the petition was taken, Justice Datta told Stalin's counsel Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, "You abuse your Article 19(1)(a) right. You abuse your Article 25 right. Now you are exercising your Article 32 right? Do you not know the consequences of what you said?"

Singhvi, clarifying that he is not justifying Stalin's comments at all, pointed out that he is facing FIRs in six states and is only seeking to consolidate them. When the bench advised him to move the concerned high courts, Singhvi replied, "I have to move six high courts, I'll constantly be tied up in this...This is persecution before the prosecution."

Justice Datta then expressed his disapproval of the petitioner's comments again. "You are not a layman. You are a minister. You should know the consequences."

Singhvi relied on the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Amish Devgan, Arnab Goswami, Nupur Sharma and Mohammed Zubair allowing the consolidation of FIRs in multiple states and stated that he is only seeking the very same relief.

"I'm not saying one word on merits, I'm not justifying or criticising. Nor am I accepting or denying. Kindly let Your Lordships' view of the merits of the case not affect the plea for clubbing of the FIRs," Singhvi urged.

When the bench asked why should a witness in a complaint in Jammu and Kashmir be asked to go to some other jurisdiction, Singhvi reiterated his reliance on the earlier cases. He stated that in the Nupur Sharma case, the Court granted the relief of consolidation of the FIRs, despite the highly provocative nature of the comments. The senior counsel also pointed out that the cause of action in the FIRs was the same, emanating from the Tamil Nadu minister's remarks. Citing Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he argued that territoriality was the heart of criminal jurisdiction.

After much persuasion by Singhvi, the bench ultimately agreed to examine the plea and posted it to next Friday, asking Singhvi to place on record the precedents.

Background

The apex court issued notice in one of the pleas, seeking the response of the State of Tamil Nadu and the embattled minister. Within days, another matter praying for criminal action against Udhayanidhi was taken up by the same bench, leading to Tamil Nadu Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari raising concerns about the volume of public interest litigations (PIL) filed over Udhayanidhi's recent remarks. In response to the law officer's concern over a multiplicity of proceedings, Justice Bose assured, "We are not issuing notice, but tagging this with the other one. We will examine the question of entertaining on the next day."