Udhayanidhi Stalin's Comments Against 'Sanatana Dharma' Amount To Hate Against Specific Community : Madras High Court

Justice Anita Sumanth observed that while equating Santana Dharma to HIV, AIDS, Leprosy, Malaria, and Corona, the Minister had revealed a lack of understanding of Hinduism. The judge further observed that the statements were perverse, divisive, and contrary to the constitutional principles.

“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,” the court said.

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."

The observations were made on quo warranto pleas filed by office bearers of Hindu Munnani Organisation- T Manohar, Kishore Kumar, and VP Jayakumar in their personal capacity. Though the court held the statements to be perverse, it refused to pass quo warranto against the Minister and observed that since there was no conviction in the FIRs against the Ministers and MP, the writ was premature and thus the reliefs sought could not be granted.

The court highlighted that those holding constitutional positions could espouse only one morality which was the morality propounded by the Constitution, irrespective of their personal ideology. The court added that though there may be ideological differences between people in power, these differences should be backed by thorough understanding of the system and should not be destructive of any faith. The court thus emphasized that the statements made by sitting Ministers in public must be factually and historically accurate.

“While there may be ideological differences between persons holding power, the differences are expected to be based on a thorough understanding of the system being critiqued and importantly, to be constructive and not destructive of any Faith. Statements made in public by sitting Ministers and MPs must be factually and historically accurate,” the court observed.

The court further pointed out that though the Constitution gave freedom of speech and expression, this freedom was not absolute and was tempered with a set of reasonable restrictions. Hate and divisiveness especially from the Government, was an anathema to this freedom and was dangerous according to the court.

“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 court said.

Though the Ministers/MP had argued that the freedom of speech and expression was above the freedom of religion, the court opined that the same could not be taken as a sanction for unconstitutional, insensitive, and erroneous statements, derogatory of a particular faith, especially by people holding constitutional posts.

The court added that a constitutional functionary was bound by Constitutional morality which expected him to be neutral, partisan, and fair while dealing with the people. According to the court, the statements made by the Ministers/MP thus amounted to disinformation and hate against members of a specific community.

The court thus opined that when constitutional functionaries vowed to annihilate a section of their people following a particular faith, such statements violated the promise of secular values under the constitution and were thus contrary to constitutional ideals.