Lawyer Brings To Supreme Court's Notice Udhayanidhi Stalin's Remarks Against Sanatana Dharma In TN Assembly

An application has been filed bringing to the notice of the Supreme Court the recent comments made by Tamil Nadu Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin against Sanatana Dharma, calling for its abolition.

It may be recalled that DMK's Udhayanidhi, son of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu MK Stalin, came under the scanner in September 2023 for his remarks comparing 'Sanatana Dharma' to diseases like 'malaria' and 'dengue' while advocating for its elimination on the 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, with pleas filed in the Supreme Court seeking action against him.

The IA has been filed in a contempt petition, which arises from a writ petition in Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court directed the suo motu registration of FIRs in matters of hate speech. The contempt petition was filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva, claiming that the police failed to take action against Stalin despite the Supreme Court's mandate in such cases.

The contempt petition was admitted on April 29 by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi.In this, a fresh application has been filed with new material alleging that Stalin, on May 12, called for the abolition/eradication of Sanatan Dharma during the proceedings of the first session of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly. He has allegedly said: "Sanatana Dharma, which divides people, must certainly be abolished."

The petitioner/applicant contends that despite the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court and the Court's earlier observations expressing disapproval of his remarks, Stalin has allegedly continued to make similar statements, amounting to wilful disregard of the judicial process. 

The matter will be considered on May 19.

Stalin had approached the Supreme Court in a writ petition for the consolidation of the FIRs against him. It granted Stalin an exemption from physically appearing before lower courts conducting proceedings. In 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that no further FIR/complaint shall be filed against him without its permission.

Petitions were also filed in the Madras High Court challenging on what basis Stalin continues to hold public office despite his controversial remarks. The Madras High Court had asked Stalin to produce what research he had done to understand 'Sanatana Dharma' before making controversial remarks against it.

Case : Amita Sachdeva v Udhayanidhi Stalin | Contempt Petition (c) 1235/2023