Sanatana Dharma Row | Freedom Of Speech And Expression Is Above Freedom Of Religion: A Raja Argues Before Madras HC

The arguments were made before Justice Anita Sumanth. The bench had previously asked Udhayanidhi what research he had done to understand 'Sanatana Dharma' before making recent controversial remarks against it.

"The right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) is not only a positive course of right, but also envisages the right to criticize, to negate, and to differ. It is crucial to recognize that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution encompasses a wide spectrum of elements beyond just mere dissemination of information and positive ideals; it also encompasses the facilitation of constructive criticism and the encouragement of disclosures. These elements are not only paramount in our contemporary society, but also serve as fundamental prerequisites for fostering and nurturing meaningful dialogue amongst the citizenry for development," Viduthalai argued.

Viduthalai submitted that the freedom of speech and expression also included the right to conscience and the right to criticise abominable religious practises, which is a constitutionally guaranteed principle.

He also submitted that the legal mechanism for disqualifying a Member of the Parliament had been exhaustively provided and none of the grounds raised by the petitioners satisfied requirement of a violation of a ‘statutory provision’ for the issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto. He added that a mere allegations under Section 295A of IPC could not act as a ground of disqualification.

With respect to the nature of the petition, Viduthalai argued that the threshold in a quo warranto was much higher thus when there was no indisputable fact that the Member of Parliament had incurred disqualification, the quo warranto was not maintainable.

It was also submitted that being a Member of Parliament, Raja had a solemn duty and responsibility to actively contribute to the betterment and well-being of the nation and promote the constitutionally guaranteed equality among its citizens irrespective of religion, caste, creed, sex etc. Thus, Raja argued that by talking about the pernicious practice propounded by Sanatana Dharma he was merely performing his duties.

The petitioners had previously argued 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.

Udhayanidhi, on the other hand, submitted that he had no intention to belittle or disrespect any religion and that he was only against the religious practices that discriminated against people. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Minister Sekar Babu, arguing on the same grounds, submitted that the present pleas were filed only because he had taken steps to recover temple properties that were allegedly encroached by members belonging to the Hindu Munnani.

Case Title: T Manohar v Udhayanidhi Stalin and Another

Case No: WP 29205 of 2023