“No Fresh FIRs To Be Lodged Against Udhayanidhi Stalin Over His Sanatan Dharma Remarks”: SC

Udhayanidhi Stalin

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant legal determination on Thursday, ruled that no additional First Information Reports shall be instituted against Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister M. Udhayanidhi Stalin concerning his contentious statements regarding ‘Sanatan Dharma.’

Judicial Intervention

A bench presided over by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar extended an interim order shielding Stalin from any coercive measures pertaining to the pre-existing criminal complaints lodged against him.

The Court’s directive underscores its commitment to preventing undue legal harassment while maintaining judicial scrutiny over the matter.

Controversial Assertions

At a political conference in September 2023, Udhayanidhi Stalin, a prominent leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, articulated a critical stance on ‘Sanatan Dharma,’ asserting that it is antithetical to the principles of social justice and equality. He argued that ‘Sanatan Dharma’ should be “eradicated,” analogizing it to pathological entities such as coronavirus, malaria, and dengue. His remarks precipitated a national debate on religious and constitutional freedoms in India.

Proliferation Of FIRs Across Jurisdictions

In the aftermath of Stalin’s statements, multiple FIRs were instituted across diverse jurisdictions, including Maharashtra, Bihar, Jammu, and Karnataka. These legal actions alleged that his comments constituted incendiary rhetoric, meriting criminal liability under relevant penal provisions.

Court’s Determination

The Supreme Court’s directive effectively halts the initiation of further FIRs against Stalin, while the adjudication of existing complaints remains ongoing. The bench reinforced that its interim protection shall persist until further judicial deliberations occur, ensuring that any punitive action aligns with due process and constitutional safeguards.

This ruling represents a crucial intervention in balancing the right to free expression with legal accountability, reaffirming the necessity of measured judicial oversight in politically sensitive matters.