Sanatana Dharma Row | Only Talked About Discriminatory Religious Practices, Article 25 Also Includes Right To Profess Atheism: Udhayanidhi Tells Madras HC

The submissions were made by Senior Advocate P Wilson before Justice Anita Sumanth.

In his counter, Udhayanidhi submitted that being one of the torch bearers of the Dravidian movement, he was expected to adhere and propagate the Dravidian principles which speak of self-respect, equality, rational thought and brotherhood. He further submitted that the petitioners, who belonged to a party affiliated with the BJP, were attempting to use the court as a battleground for a political/ social debate without any legal question.

Turning to Article 25, it was submitted that Article 25 guaranteed not only the right to practice and profess religion but also freedom of conscience. Thus, he argued that the Article not only involved the freedom to believe in god but also the freedom not to believe in god and profess atheism.

Udhayanidhi also submitted that a writ of quo warranto was maintainable only when the initial appointment was contrary to law or the person had attracted any disqualification under the constitution or any other law. He added that in the present case, he was neither disqualified as per the Constitution or as per the Representation of Peoples Act. Further, he submitted that even if an allegation was made, an elected MLA did not cease to be a member on mere registration of an FIR.

Udhayanidhi further argued that merely because a person holds a different view, he could not be disqualified from holding office as Minister as that would rob the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution.

Pointing out that the petitioners had largely relied on a book published by the Benares Hindu College to talk about Sanatana Dharma, Udhayanidhi submitted that the book had neither acquired the status of custom or usage or received the approval of majority Hindu sects and thus could not be elevated to the status of violation of constitutional provisions. He submitted that by relying on the book, the petitioners were trying to take the society back to the dark ages were men and women were treated unequally, persons from lower caste were shunned, ostracised and treated as second class citizens.

With respect to fundamental duties, Udhayanidhi submitted that fundamental duties were not justiciable and not enforceable in court and even otherwise, the statements made by Udhayanidhi were in favour of equality, abolition of caste discrimination, upliftment of backward classes, empowerment of women and equal treatment of women which was in furtherance of the fundamental duties and not against it.

Thus, claiming the petition to be purely due to political motive, he requested the court to dismiss the petition in limine.

The matter has been adjourned to October 31 for continuation of arguments.

Case Title: T Manohar v Udhayanidhi Stalin and Another

Case No: WP 29205 of 2023