In the realm of jurisprudence, the Supreme Court, on the eve of Monday, articulated its discontent with Tamil Nadu’s luminary minister, Udhayanidhi Stalin, concerning his commentary on “Sanatana Dharma.” The judicial inquiry questioned the sagacity behind his utterances and pondered whether it constituted an infringement of Article 19(1)(a) safeguarding the freedom of speech.
Senior counsel A M Singhvi, the legal emissary for Stalin, proffered before a bench presided over by justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, the existence of a First Information Report (FIR) against his client in Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu, Maharashtra, among other regions. Stalin, invoking the apex court, sought an amalgamation of FIRs filed against him, specifically linked to his commentary on ‘Sanatana Dharma.’ Singhvi accentuated the multijurisdictional legal entanglement faced by his client.
Justice Datta, addressing Stalin’s legal representative, admonished the dual exercise of his Art 19(1)(a) and Art 25 rights. The inquiry extended to the utilization of Art 32 rights by Stalin. Justice Datta queried, “Are you oblivious to the repercussions of your statements?” Singhvi, citing precedents involving Arnab Goswami, Nupur Sharma, Mohd Zubair, and Amish Devgan, advocated for the consolidation of FIRs. Justice Khanna suggested approaching a high court, to which Singhvi expounded on the intricacies, stating that his client would be entangled in a legal quagmire across multiple high courts, deeming it a form of persecution preceding prosecution.
Justice Datta, asserting his non-layman status as a minister, emphasized, “You should be cognizant of the consequences.” Singhvi, contending that the controversial statements were made in a closed-door meeting, not a public rally, faced further scrutiny from Justice Khanna regarding the Criminal Procedure Code’s provisions in addressing such nuances. Singhvi, asserting the absence of such provisions in Tamil Nadu, proposed the consolidation of FIRs in a neutral venue, insulating the merits of the case from the plea for consolidation.
In response, Singhvi clarified his position, emphasizing his neutrality on the merits of the case. He underscored the necessity to consolidate FIRs in a single location, insisting, “I’m refraining from expressing a stance on the merits—neither justifying, denying, nor criticizing.”
Following the submissions, the apex court adjourned the matter for subsequent deliberation, scheduled for the forthcoming Friday.
Reflecting on a conference in September 2023, Udhayanidhi Stalin articulated that Sanatana Dharma stands antithetical to social justice and equality, advocating for its “eradication.” Despite the ensuing backlash, Stalin remained resolute, pledging perpetual opposition to Sanatana Dharma.