SC orders no fresh cases be filed against Udhayanidhi Stalin over Sanatan Dharma remarks without its nod

The bench allowed the amendment and directed that notice be issued to the newly added respondents.

“…amendment application is allowed, issue notice to newly added respondents on steps taken by petitioner….liberty is granted to newly added respondents to file response within 15 days from the date of service, rejoinder if any after 15 days, interim order to continue and will equally apply to the cases mentioned in the amended Writ Petition. We also deem it appropriate to direct that no further cases be registered without the permission of this court,” the bench said in its order.

Speaking at a conference in September 2023, Udhayanidhi had likened Sanatan Dharma to coronavirus, malaria and dengue, and said it should be eradicated.

Singhvi referred to the cases of journalist Arnab Goswami, AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair and former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma wherein the Supreme Court had allowed clubbing of FIRs. He said that in the Sharma case, “the words were supposed to be much more offensive”. Singhvi pointed out that in all these cases, the cases were transferred to the place where the first FIR was registered and added “that’s the solution in this case”.

Singhvi also recalled that the Supreme Court had previously said that it may transfer the cases against Stalin to another state, preferably Karnataka, for trial.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Maharashtra, said, “It was Sanatan Dharma Eradication Conference…the Deputy Chief Minister says that some of the things are not to be dealt with, they are to be eradicated like mosquito, Corona, dengue etc…”. He wondered what would have been the reaction if a chief minister of some other state had called for eradication of Islam. “Kindly appreciate that if a Chief Minister of another state says that a particular religion, say Islam, should be eradicated..,” he added.

The court, however, said that it is not going into the merits of the matter and was only on whether the FIRs should be clubbed and transferred to one place. “We have a very limited issue before us,” the bench said.

Mehta added, “Merely because a community sought to be eradicated does not react in a violent way by threatening, this cannot be said.”

Intervening, the CJI said, “We will not like, as an apex court, to comment upon any words because they have an impact on the trial.”

Wilson said that he would like to take Mehta “to my soil, Tamil Nadu. It is entirely different. He is not understanding.”

Mehta hit back, saying “Your chief minister said this on your soil. I am not against Tamil Nadu. I am against these words. Irresponsible words by an individual.”

Singhvi said Mehta was speaking for another audience. To this, Mehta said court is his only forum. “I have no other audience. I can’t hold press conferences…Singhvi can hold press conferences,” he added. “You are holding one inside the court,” Singhvi retorted.

After the bench dictated its order, Mehta urged the court to hear the matter along with a pending writ petition on hate speeches. “There is a matter pending which is filed by a public spirited person, that wherever there is similar speeches, the court is directing registration of FIRs. Let this also be heard along with that,” he submitted.

Wilson opposed the request, saying, “No, that has nothing to do with this.”

CJI Khanna said he was aware of the matter and it dealt with larger issues and that the court had made it clear that it will not get into individual instances of alleged violations. “I am aware of that matter. In all those matters, we had said we will not directly come into the picture,” he added.

Mehta said that the current bench may have said so but a bench which heard it in the past had ordered action in individual cases. “In the past, another bench directions were issued…individual facts were brought on record and court directed investigation,” he said.

The reference apparently was to petitions against rallies by Hindu outfits wherein inflammatory remarks were allegedly made. A bench presided by Justice (retired) K M Joseph had called upon states to register cases in such instances.

The bench said it is not entertaining those individual matters anymore and fixed the matter for hearing next on April 21.