'Sanatana Dharma' Row | Supreme Court Permits Udhayanidhi Stalin To Amend Plea And Seek Clubbing Of Criminal Cases

The Supreme Court today permitted Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin to amend his writ petition and seek clubbing of FIRs/criminal complaints registered against him across multiple states over his controversial 'Sanatana Dharma' remarks.

A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta passed the order taking into account an amendment application filed on behalf of Stalin. On the last date, the court had asked Stalin's counsel, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, to examine if instead of seeking relief under Article 32 of the Constitution, Stalin can pursue an application under Section 406 CrPC before the top Court for clubbing of the cases.

Accordingly, on May 3, an amendment application was filed on behalf of Stalin to bring on record subsequent developments as well as the response to legal issues raised during the proceedings.

What did the amended application say?

Firsly, the application stated that at present, there are 7 FIRs/complaints pending against Stalin and chargesheet has not been filed in any.

Secondly, it responded to the court's query with respect to Section 406 CrPC (whether the same provided a more apt course for Stalin), saying that the provision only applies to transfer of a case or an appeal, not investigation pending before any court.

Thirdly, it dealt with a query raised by Justice Datta on the last date, under the belief that the top Court transferred Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar (2020) 20 SCC 184 (Sushant Singh Rajput case) under Section 406 CrPC. The application clarified that the investigation in the said case was transferred by the Court to CBI by invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. It added that as per the order in the captioned case, the conclusion and observations were only for disposal of the petition and would have no bearing for any other purpose.

The application cited certain other decisions to support the claim that the top court cannot transfer investigations under Section 406 CrPC.

Fourthly, it reiterated that decisions for clubbing of FIRs/transfer of criminal cases rendered by the Supreme Court under writ jurisdiction, with respect to journalists, shall apply to Stalin's case.

"...any inference that a journalist employed with a television news channel and a Minister of the State Legislative Assembly to have different yardsticks vis-à-vis right to exercise free speech would be against the ethos of the right to speech and expression and violation of Art 14."

In support of this argument, the case of N.V. Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. was cited. It was averred that Stalin was entitled to the same relief as Nupur Sharma, a BJP spokesperson, in respect of whom the Supreme Court clubbed FIRs to one jurisdiction.

Fifthly, it was contended that most of the FIRs/complaints against Stalin are pending in Maharashtra, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and UT of Jammu & Kashmir, which are currently ruled/administered by the BJP. The plea mentioned that Stalin has been receiving threats to life, and as such, it would be difficult for him to appear in different states, particularly those where there is anticipation of political interference.

"...the Petitioner faces grave threat to his life and liberty and will encounter great difficulty in appearing before different police stations and courts in different regions."

Background

Udhayanidhi Stalin, DMK leader and son of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, came under the scanner in September last year for his remarks comparing 'Sanatana Dharma' to diseases like 'malaria' and 'dengue' while advocating for its elimination on grounds that it was rooted in the caste system and historical discrimination. This not only triggered a major political row, but also led to several criminal complaints against Udhayanidhi, besides pleas being filed in the Supreme Court seeking action against him.

The top court issued notice in one of the pleas, seeking 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 (PILs) 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."

In October, the bench led by Justice Bose tagged another petition over the Tamil Nadu minister's remarks about 'Sanatana Dharma' with the two other pending pleas.

Case Title: Udhayanidhi Stalin v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 104/2024