SC points discover to Udhayanidhi Stalin over his ‘eradicate Sanatan Dharma’ remarks

The Supreme Court docket on Friday sought responses from the Tamil Nadu authorities and Udhayanidhi Stalin, the state minister for youth welfare and sports activities improvement and son of chief minister MK Stalin, to a petition that sought the registration of an FIR towards Udhayanidhi for his feedback earlier this month that ‘Sanatan Dharma’ was towards the thought of social justice and that it have to be eradicated.

Tamil Nadu youth affairs and sports activities minister and DMK chief Udhayanidhi Stalin. (PTI Photograph)

A bench of justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi issued notices to the state authorities and Udhayanidhi even because it noticed that the petitioner had the choice of approaching the jurisdictional excessive courtroom in first occasion.

“Why are you right here? You go to the excessive courtroom. Your prayer is that an FIR is to be registered. You might be remodeling us right into a police station,” noticed the bench, including the excessive courtroom was equally competent to cross the order as requested within the petition.

Nonetheless, the senior lawyer, representing the petitioner, identified {that a} batch of issues regarding hate speech was pending earlier than the Supreme Court docket. “When the state itself unleashes tirade towards a selected faith and forces the kids to talk towards a selected faith, the Supreme Court docket is the one treatment. There’s a round issued by the state authorities two days in the past that youngsters would communicate towards Sanatan Dharma,” he added.

The senior counsel mentioned that this was a case the place a constitutional authority was raking up non secular emotions, and subsequently, the apex courtroom should step in.

The bench was initially disinclined to entertain the petition filed by B Jagannath, a lawyer working towards within the Madras excessive courtroom, nevertheless it lastly agreed to confess the plea and subject notices. These arrayed as respondents within the petition additionally embody Tamil Nadu Hindu Non secular Charitable Endowment minister Sekar Babu, Lok Sabha member of Parliament A Raja, DMK president Veeramani Ok Veeramani and chairman of Tamil Nadu State Minorities Fee Peter Alphonse.

Addressing a convention organised in Chennai by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Affiliation on the theme of ‘eradication of Sanatan’ on September 2, Udhayanidhi mentioned that Sanatana was towards the thought of social justice and that it needed to be eradicated. “A number of issues can’t be opposed, that ought to be abolished solely. We will’t oppose dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or corona. We’ve got to eradicate this, that’s how we have now to eradicate Sanatana,” Udhayanidhi was quoted as saying on the day.

Whilst his feedback kicked up an enormous political row, with a number of Bharatiya Janata Occasion (BJP) leaders attacking Udhayanidhi for his controversial remarks, the minister later mentioned he stands by his phrases and is “able to face any authorized problem”.

On September 7, Tamil Nadu CM defended the statements of his cupboard colleague and son, saying they have been aimed on the rules that discriminate towards Scheduled Castes, tribals, and ladies.

Jagannath’s petition within the prime courtroom alleged that the September 2 convention was organised to incite eradication of a particular faith and to focus on Hinduism – which, he claimed, was additionally known as ‘Sanatan Dharma’.

Sustaining that it’s a textbook case of “hate speech”, Jagannath sought motion towards Udhayanidhi for harbouring and expressing such hatred towards Hindus. The plea mentioned that if no FIR is filed towards Udhayanidhi and the organisers of the convention, it’s clear that there’s bias, favouritism and discrimination towards Hindus within the state.

The petitioner identified that in a 2018 judgment, the Supreme Court docket mandated the appointment of a nodal officer to fight hate speeches and register FIRs wherever warranted, however the Tamil Nadu authorities is but to adjust to the courtroom order.

There are at the least two extra pleas pending earlier than totally different benches of the Supreme Court docket for motion towards the DMK minister. One among these purposes is pending earlier than a bench which has been monitoring the steps taken by the Centre and the states to adjust to the rules laid down in its 2018 judgment within the Tehseen Poonawala Case. The 2018 judgment laid down in depth pointers and preventive steps to be taken by states to curb cases of mob lynching and hate speeches.

Supply hyperlink

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *