Sanatana Dharma row: Madras HC dismisses petitions against Udhayanidhi Stalin, other TN Ministers

The Madras High Court has dismissed petitions against Udhayanidhi Stalin and others in connection with the Sanatana Dharma row. Stalin had said Sanatan Dharma is against social justice and equality and should be 'eradicated'.

Chennai (Tamil Nadu): The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed petitions against Udhayanidhi Stalin, Sekar Babu and Lok Sabha member A Raja in connection with the Sanatan Dharma row. Udhayanidhi Stalin is the son of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK leader MK Stalin.

He had stoked a row saying that the Sanatan Dharma should be "eradicated". Speaking at a conference in September 2023, Udhayanidhi Stalin said that 'Sanatana Dharma' is against social justice and equality and should be "eradicated".

Justice Anita Sumanth disposed of the petitions filed by two Hindu Munnani functionaries and another person, which questioned the authority of the three DMK leaders holding official posts when they had participated in an "anti-Sanatana Dharma meeting" and allegedly delivered speeches against the system of religious practices.

T Manohar, who claims to be an office-bearer of the Hindu Munnani, and two others filed the present quo-warranto petitions. Dismissing the petitions, the judge however observed that persons holding high posts must act with more responsibility and verify historical events before making statements.

Advocate P Wilson said that the High Court rejected the plea of T Manohar, who wanted the court to issue a quo warranto.

The BJP hit out at Udhayanidhi, who is Tamil Nadu's Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports. Despite facing backlash for his statement, Udhayanidhi Stalin stood his ground, saying that he would oppose Sanatana Dharma forever.

The Supreme Court had on Monday expressed its displeasure at Stalin in relation to his remarks regarding 'Sanatana Dharma', saying do you not know the consequences of what he said and isn’t it an abuse of Article 19 (1) (a) (free speech)? Senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing Stalin, submitted before a bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta that there is an FIR against his client in Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu, Maharashtra etc.

Stalin had moved the apex court seeking a direction for clubbing of FIRs lodged against him over his remarks regarding 'Sanatana Dharma'. Singhvi stressed that cases have been registered against his client in many states.