DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

SC stays new FIRs against Udhayanidhi over Sanatan Dharma remarks

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed that no fresh FIRs be filed against Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister M Udhayanidhi Stalin over his "eradicate Sanatan Dharma" remarks without its prior permission. Acting on a petition filed by Udhayanidhi, a Bench...
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed that no fresh FIRs be filed against Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister M Udhayanidhi Stalin over his "eradicate Sanatan Dharma" remarks without its prior permission.

Acting on a petition filed by Udhayanidhi, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna also extended its interim order granting him protection against coercive actions in cases registered against him.

The order came after senior advocates AM Singhvi and P Wilson submitted that a fresh FIR had been registered against Udhayanidhi in Bihar.

Advertisement

The Bench allowed Udhayanidhi to amend his petition to add the new complainants in his pending case and posted the matter for hearing on April 21.

Likening Sanatan Dharma to coronavirus, malaria and dengue, Udhayanidhi had in September 2023 allegedly called for its eradication.

Advertisement

Referring to its orders for clubbing of FIRs in cases against TV journalist Arnab Goswami, AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair and former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, Singhvi urged the top court to transfer the cases against Udhayanidhi to another state, preferably Karnataka, for trial.

On behalf of the Maharashtra Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta wondered what would have happened if a chief minister of some other state had called for eradication of a particular religion, say Islam. “Merely because a community sought to be eradicated does not react in a violent way, this (eradicate Sanatan Dharma) can’t be said,” Mehta argued.

However, the Bench refused to go into the merits of the case. “We will not like to comment upon any words because they have an impact on the trial,” the Bench said.

As Mehta said the matter should be taken up with another petition on hate speech pending before another Bench, the CJI said the other matter dealt with the larger issue of hate speech and not individual hate speeches.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper