The Supreme Court on Monday rebuked Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader Udayanidhi Stalin for his remarks in September suggesting the eradication of “Sanatana Dharma,” emphasizing that such comments abuse the right to free speech. The court reminded Stalin, who is also a Tamil Nadu minister, of the responsibility that comes with his position.
“You are not a layman. You are a minister…should have realised the consequences of your remarks,” said a bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta while hearing Stalin’s petition for clubbing criminal cases registered against him over the remarks in six states.
Representing Stalin, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the remarks were made in a closed-door meeting, not in a public setting. He expressed concerns about the persecution his client faced, as cases were filed against him in multiple states, including Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Jammu and Kashmir, and Mumbai.
Also read: Delhi’s Bold Move: Kejriwal Government Unveils ₹1,000 Cash Promise for Women Over 18 in 2024 Budget
However, the court stressed that Article 32, which allows individuals to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, cannot be used as a remedy after abusing fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) for free speech and expression, and Article 25 for freedom of religion.
“You abuse your Article 19(1)(a)…Article 25… Now you want to exercise your Article 32…Do you know the consequences of what you said,” the bench said.
The court initially suggested approaching individual high courts for the cases, considering the inconvenience witnesses would face traveling across states. Singhvi referenced similar situations faced by journalists and political figures, where cases were clubbed together, citing precedents involving Arnab Goswami, Amish Devgan, Nupur Sharma, and Mohammad Zubair. The court agreed to review these judgments and the proceedings in each case against Stalin before the next hearing on March 15.
Two petitions seeking Stalin’s criminal prosecution for his remarks are still pending before the Supreme Court.
