‘Sanatana Dharma’ Row | Cases Should Go Outside Tamil Nadu, Says Supreme Court Issuing Notice On Udhayanidhi Stalin’s Plea To Club Cases

The Supreme Court today issued notice on Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s plea for clubbing of criminal cases registered against him across multiple states over his controversial ‘Sanatana Dharma’ remarks.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar passed the order, expressing orally that the cases will have to go outside Tamil Nadu. “You can’t be in State of Tamil Nadu, you will have to go out…tell us which is the most convenient state”, orally observed Khanna J.

While directing the Minister’s exemption from personal appearance before the courts concerned, the order was dictated as follows,

“Issue notice to the respondents in terms of the amended writ petition returnable in the week commencing 18.11.2024. The petitioner may appear through Authorized Representative before the courts concerned and would be granted exemption from personal appearance. Reply maybe filed within 4 weeks from date of service.”

To recap, Stalin filed the instant case under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking reliefs in connection with the cases registered against him across the country over the controversial ‘Sanatana Dharma’ remarks. However, in April this year, the top Court asked his lawyers to examine if he can instead pursue an application under Section 406 CrPC for clubbing of the cases.

Subsequently, Stalin preferred an application seeking amendment of the prayer clause. This application was allowed in May. Today, notice was issued on the Minister’s plea to club the cases.

During the hearing, the court was informed that a total of 3 FIRs and 5 complaints have been registered. Respondents’ counsel raised a preliminary issue, saying that there is a specific provision under Section 406 CrPC (Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals) and only the FIRs could be clubbed, not the complaints.

On hearing the counsels, Justice Khanna observed,

“(Section) 406 may help, but these are in different states. We will have to do that. (Section) 406 we are permitting if it is in the same high Court, but there is a difficulty. One is, separate offences. One is a same offence, but different complaints. Different charges also in a complaint. That is to be treated separate. Suppose there is Section 420…everytime a deposit is made, different complaints are filed. Those cases are separate. If the offense is one, the registration of offenses is separate.”

When Stalin’s counsel referred to the fact that an Ayodhya seer has announced an award of Rs.10 crores for beheading him, the judge remarked, “there can be people of this nature, but you do not take that as a threat.”

It may also be mentioned that the names of states/cities of Kerala, Bangalore and Patna came up during the hearing for the trial of the cases. The bench briefly considered Bangalore to be a good prospect, when it was pointed out that a case was already pending there. However, doubts arose when it was highlighted that the case in Bangalore has been stayed, albeit qua co-accused.

Background

Udhayanidhi Stalin, DMK leader and son of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, came under the scanner in September last year for his remarks comparing ‘Sanatana Dharma’ to diseases like ‘malaria’ and ‘dengue’ while advocating for its elimination on grounds that it was rooted in the caste system and historical discrimination. This not only triggered a major political row, but also led to several criminal complaints against Udhayanidhi, besides pleas being filed in the Supreme Court seeking action against him.

The top court issued notice in one of the pleas, seeking response of the State of Tamil Nadu and the embattled minister. Within days, another matter praying for criminal action against Udhayanidhi was taken up by the same bench, leading to Tamil Nadu Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari raising concerns about the volume of public interest litigations (PILs) filed over Udhayanidhi’s recent remarks. In response to the law officer’s concern over a multiplicity of proceedings, Justice Bose assured, “We are not issuing notice, but tagging this with the other one. We will examine the question of entertaining on the next day.”

In October, the bench led by Justice Bose tagged another petition over the Tamil Nadu minister’s remarks about ‘Sanatana Dharma’ with the two other pending pleas.

Case Title: Udhayanidhi Stalin v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 104/2024

_{Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.}