'Sanatana Dharma' Row | Minister Can't Be Equated To Media Persons: Supreme Court On Udhayanidhi Stalin's Plea To Club Criminal Cases

While hearing Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin's plea for clubbing of criminal cases registered against him across multiple states over his controversial 'Sanatana Dharma' remarks, the Supreme Court today expressed that Ministers cannot be equated with media persons.

The Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta suggested to Stalin's counsel, Sr Adv Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, to examine if instead of seeking relief under Article 32 of the Constitution, Stalin can pursue an application under Section 406 CrPC before the top Court for clubbing of the cases.

Pertinently, Datta J pointed out three aspects during the hearing. First, that in some cases against Stalin, cognizance had been taken and as such, the cases had transformed into judicial proceedings which could not be touched under Article 32. On strength of the same, the judge asked Singhvi, "Why come under Article 32?"

Secondly, it was underlined that Stalin could not utilize Article 32 jurisdiction to avoid obligations voluntarily incurred. "You have made the speech, we do not know whether it is in public view or not... but now that summons have been issued, you cannot by filing 32 come here", the judge said.

Third, Justice Datta highlighted that the precedents relied upon by Stalin were mostly filed by news/media people, who act under the dictate of an in-charge and cannot be equated with Ministers.

In response, Singhvi claimed that Section 406 CrPC did not apply to criminal cases. Datta J however countered with the instance of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput's case, saying that the same was transferred by the top Court to CBI under Section 406 CrPC.

When Singhvi disputed it by saying that Rajput's case as well was under Article 32, Justice Datta left it to the Senior Counsel to check up since as far as he could recall, Justice Hrishikesh Roy had passed the order in the matter as a Single Judge (which was not possible if the case was under Article 32).

So far as Stalin's reliance on orders passed in cases of Nupur Sharma and Mohammad Zubair, Justice Datta reiterated that Zubair was a media person (being co-founder of ALT news).

When Singhvi drew attention to Nupur Sharma saying, "Nupur Sharma is a pure politician", Justice Datta commented (in jest), "maybe a political leader but not of as much importance as your client".

In passing, Singhvi also took the opportunity to plead before the Court that the intent behind Stalin's remark was not to make a political warcry. "It was 20, 40, 50 people in a closed room, not a public rally", he said.

Justice Khanna, however, re-diverted the focus towards the prayer in the case and remarked that the limited issue before the Court was clubbing of FIRs.

The Bench posted the matter to week commencing May 6, to enable Stalin and his counsels to amend the petition and examine legal issues.

Background

Udhayanidhi Stalin, DMK leader and son of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin, came under the scanner in September last year for his remarks comparing 'Sanatana Dharma' to diseases like 'malaria' and 'dengue' while advocating for its elimination on 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, besides pleas being filed in the Supreme Court seeking action against him.

The top court issued notice in one of the pleas, seeking response of the State of Tamil Nadu and the embattled minister. Within days, another matter praying for criminal action against Udhayanidhi was taken up by the same bench, leading to Tamil Nadu Additional Advocate General Amit Anand Tiwari raising concerns about the volume of public interest litigations (PILs) filed over Udhayanidhi's recent remarks. In response to the law officer's concern over a multiplicity of proceedings, Justice Bose assured, "We are not issuing notice, but tagging this with the other one. We will examine the question of entertaining on the next day."

In October, the bench led by Justice Bose tagged another petition over the Tamil Nadu minister's remarks about 'Sanatana Dharma' with the two other pending pleas.

Case Title: Udhayanidhi Stalin v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 104/2024