‘Sanatana Dharma’ row: Tamil Nadu minister’s statements were divisive, says HC

Madras high court justice Anitha Sumanth who on Wednesday refrained from issuing a writ of quo warranto (challenging a person’s legal right to hold public office) against Tamil Nadu minister Udhayanidhi Stalin for his “Sanatana Dharma” released a detailed 107-page order on Thursday. The court, however, had observed that the comments made by the minister were divisive in nature.

“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 justice said. This case pertains to a petition filed by office bearers of the “Hindu Munnani” against Udhayanidhi, minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Sekar Babu and member of parliament A Raja over the controversy. The court refused to issue a quo warranto against all three of them.

Last September, Udhayanidhi, who is also the son of chief minister MK Stalin, in a public speech said that “Sanatana Dharma” must be eradicated like mosquito diseases. Minister Babu was on stage with him and when it caused a national stir, Raja backed him saying that it is a centuries old problem which was also raised by BR Ambedkar. Bharatiya Janata Party’s national leadership including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah accused the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) bloc (which includes the DMK) of being anti-Hinduism. Several police cases were filed against Udhayanidhi across the country over his comment and there was even a bounty on his head. But he doubled down on his stance that “Sanatana Dharma promotes casteism and inequality.”

“This court agrees unequivocally that there are inequities based on caste present in society today and that they are to be eschewed,” the justice said. “However, the origins of the caste system as we know it today are less than a century old.” The justice said that caste divisions are deeply entrenched in Tamil Nadu which has 370 registered castes and the “State is a cacophony of pulls and pressures by groups of persons claiming allegiance to one caste or the other,” the justice said in her order. “This ferocity among people belonging to different castes is also, in part, on account of the benefits made available to them. Can one lay the blame for these torturous circumstances entirely on the ancient Varna system? The answer is emphatically in the negative.”

The court said that it does not agree with the respondents submission that the freedom to practise religion guaranteed under Article 25 is subservient to freedom of speech as guaranteed under Article 19. “This cannot, however, be taken as a

sanction for unconstitutional, insensitive and erroneous statements, derogatory

of particular faith, particularly from those holding Constitutional posts,” the court said.

While the Indian Constitution propounds a secular Government with equal freedom to all its citizens, “hate and divisiveness” particularly from the government, is anathema to such freedom, and assumes a seriousness bordering on danger, 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,” the justice said. “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 high court’s observations come close on the heels of similar criticism from the Supreme Court on Monday pulling up Udhayanidhi for the remark and “abusing” his right to freedom of speech. “You are not a layman, you are a minister. You should have realised the consequences of your remarks,” an SC bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said.

Since the apex court has issued a notice to the respondents and a petition seeking disqualification against them is also pending before Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi, the court stated that the appropriate authority under the Constitution has been approached in the matter. The justice said that the court cannot pass such an order unless Udhayanidhi is disqualified under law from holding the post. “The doctrine of separation of powers would require that judges perform the Constitutional function of safeguarding the supremacy of the Constitution while exercising the power of judicial review in a fair and even handed manner,” the justice said. “Thus, while checking the encroachment of power, the Judiciary must itself guard against encroaching beyond its own bounds.”