‘Should’ve known consequences,’ SC tells DMK’s Udayanidhi Stalin on Sanatana Dharma remarks

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday expressed its disapproval of Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s controversial remarks on “Sanatana Dharma”, saying he should have known the “consequences of making such statements” as a politician.

A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta criticised Stalin’s comments as it took up his petition to club multiple FIRs that were registered in various states soon after his disparaging comments on Sanatana Dharma went viral in September last year.

Stalin had likened it to diseases such as “malaria” and “dengue” and called for its elimination on the ground that it was rooted in the caste system.

“You abuse your Article 19 (1)(a) (right to free speech) right. You abuse your Article 25 (right to practise one’s faith) right. Now you are exercising your Article 32 (right to move the apex court directly when there is a violation of someone’s fundamental right) right? Do you not know the consequences of what you said,” Justice Datta asked senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who on behalf of Stalin urged the bench to issue notice on his client’s petition to club the cases.

Stalin is facing criminal cases in Maharashtra, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka over his remarks.

At the outset, the bench asked Stalin to move the concerned high courts, which Singhvi said would amount to “persecution and not prosecution”. “I will have to move six high courts. I will be constantly tied up in this,” the senior counsel said, pointing to the FIRs and contending that he was only seeking consolidation of all the cases.

Justice Datta, who was more vocal of the two judges, said: “You (Stalin) are not a layman. You are a minister. You should know the consequences.”

Singhvi then went on to rely on past orders of the top court when it had given relief to journalists Amish Devgan, Arnab Goswami and Mohammed Zubair and also BJP leader Nupur Sharma. In all these matters, the top court had allowed the consolidation of FIRs that were filed in various states.

Singhvi clarified he was not arguing on merits, nor justifying or criticising Stalin’s words. “Let the merits of the case not affect the plea for clubbing of the FIRs,” the counsel said.

When the bench asked why a witness in one jurisdiction should be made to suffer the inconvenience of travelling to another jurisdiction to record evidence, Singhvi reiterated the reliefs the top court had given in the earlier cases. He specifically mentioned the Nupur Sharma case in which, he added, the court had ordered the consolidation of FIRs, despite the highly provocative nature of her comments.

Singhvi finally persuaded the bench to issue notice and list the matter for further hearing next Friday. The senior advocate was asked to put on record the precedents in support of Stalin’s plea to club FIRs and have one state police investigate all of them.

The top court has already been seized of multiple public interest litigations (PILs) filed against Udayanidhi Stalin for his remarks on Sanatana Dharma. The Supreme Court had last October issued notices on one of the pleas seeking criminal action against the Tamil Nadu minister, who is the son of Chief Minister M.K. Stalin. The PILs filed later were tagged with the first one.

(Edited by Tikli Basu)