The Supreme Court on Wednesday tagged a plea of a Delhi-based lawyer Vineet Jindal that seeks an FIR against Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin and MP A Raja for their statements advocating the eradication of ‘Sanatan Dharma’ with a similar pending plea.
A bench headed by Justice Aniruddha Bose decided not to issue a notice on the plea but instead linked it with a similar plea filed by a lawyer from Chennai, which the apex court had issued notice on last week.
The Additional Advocate General of the Tamil Nadu government opposed the plea, characterizing these petitions as ‘publicity interest litigations.’ The argument presented was that there are 40 writ petitions filed across the country in various High Courts for the sake of publicity, making it exceedingly challenging for the State.
The bench responded by stating that it would not issue a notice on the plea but would instead link it with the pending petition. “We have not issued a notice. Let it be tagged. We will see on that day,” the bench stated.
During the proceedings, the apex court was hearing an application filed by advocate Vineet Jindal, which also sought contempt of court action against the Delhi and Chennai police for not registering a suo motu FIR for hate speech in line with the Supreme Court’s earlier order.
This application was submitted as part of an ongoing hate speech case and called for the registration of an FIR against Stalin and Rajya Sabha MP A Raja for their actions in outraging religious sentiments, insulting Hindu religion followers, and inciting enmity among different religious groups.
The lawyer, who is a follower of Sanatan Dharma, asserted that he watched a video statement by Stalin in which he spoke at an event called the ‘Sanatan Abolition Conference.’ In the video, Stalin called for the eradication of Sanatan Dharma and made derogatory comparisons with mosquitoes, dengue, corona, and malaria. These remarks were deemed offensive and reflective of his disdain for Sanatan Dharma.
Despite filing a complaint with the Delhi police for the registration of an FIR under sections 153A & B, 295A, 298, and 505, the police had not yet registered the FIR. The Supreme Court had previously issued an order on April 28, instructing all States and Union Territories to register suo motu FIRs in hate speech cases without requiring a formal complaint.
The lawyer’s application emphasized the need for action to be taken irrespective of the religion of the speaker to uphold India’s secular character as envisioned in the Constitution’s Preamble.
On September 5, 262 notable individuals, including former High Court judges and bureaucrats, wrote to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, urging him to take note of Stalin’s hate speech advocating the eradication of ‘Sanatan Dharma.’ They referenced the Supreme Court’s directive to governments and police authorities to initiate suo motu action in hate speech cases without waiting for formal complaints.
On September 2, Udhayanidhi Stalin, a DMK leader, sparked a significant political controversy nationwide when he likened Sanatan Dharma to coronavirus, malaria, and dengue, asserting that such things should not be opposed but destroyed.
