The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered that no fresh cases should be registered against Tamil Nadu deputy chief minister Udhayanidhi Stalin over his controversial remarks against Sanatana Dharma and extended protection against his arrest in the cases registered against him in connection with the remarks till the next hearing on his petition to club all cases filed against him across the country.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna said, “We deem it appropriate that no further cases shall be registered without permission of this court.”
Stalin pointed out that in November last year, the court indicated that all cases may preferably be transferred to Karnataka and since then, fresh criminal cases have been registered against him with regard to the same remarks made by him against Sanatan Dharma at an event in September 2023.
Moving an application seeking protection from arrest in the fresh cases, senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and P Wilson appearing for Stalin pointed out there are cases pending against him in Bihar, Jammu, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. “On the previous date, court had indicated transferring all cases to Karnataka. In past cases involving journalist Arnab Goswami and BJP leader Nupur Sharma, this court had passed similar orders transferring cases to one place,” Singhvi said.
The bench, also comprising justice Sanjay Kumar issued notice to the complainants in the fresh cases lodged against Stalin and said, “Interim orders to continue. The order will equally apply to cases now mentioned.”
The court posted the matter to the week commencing April 21 seeking response from the private complainants.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for the Maharashtra government told the court that the case involves remarks made by the deputy CM of a state who says Sanatan Dharma is a thing not to be dealt with but eradicated. “…This gentleman is a deputy chief minister and these are irresponsible words.”
The bench told Mehta that it does not wish to go into the merits of the statement made by Stalin. “We are not going into merits. We have a limited issue before us to have all cases heard at one place,” the court said.
Mehta said that the top court is hearing another matter on hate speech where orders have been issued in the past directing registration of FIRs against persons who indulge in offensive remarks against the Muslim community. “Let this matter be heard along with that case.
Moreover, it said, “We are aware of that matter you are talking about. In that case, applications were filed by different parties. We never came into the picture…That case is dealing with a larger issue.”
Singhvi told the court that the pending case has nothing to do with the present matter. “The solicitor general is more vehement than the private complainants,” Singhvi said. Wilson told the court that political arguments are sought to be made instead of legal submissions. Mehta denied saying, “That matter is about another religion. Let this matter be heard together. This in not political but legal arguments. After all, people should know about this.”
Stalin had filed a petition earlier under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming violation of his fundamental rights and sought clubbing of first information reports (FIR) against him pending in various states. The controversial remarks were made by him at a conference at Chennai organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association on the topic “Eradication of Sanatan”.
Stalin had said, “There are some things that we have to eradicate and we can’t merely oppose. Mosquitoes, dengue, corona and malaria are things that we cannot oppose, we have to eradicate them. Sanatanam is also like this. Eradication and not opposing Sanatanam has to be our first task.”
The petition filed by Stalin said that the Constitution permits him under Article 19(1)(a) (right to freedom of speech and expression of the Constitution) to speak about the evils of caste discrimination while Article 25 (freedom of conscience, the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion) guarantees the right to question the very existence of God, religion and religious dogmas.
The court in March last year had objected to this stand taken by the petitioner and said, “You abuse your right under Article 19(1)(a). You abuse your right under Article 25. And now you are exercising your right under Article 32 (to file a plea in the Supreme Court directly)? Do you not know the consequences of what you said?”
In August last year, the top court had permitted Stalin to appear through his authorised representative in the trial, granting him exemption from personal appearance.