Madras High Court criticises Udhayanidhi Stalin for Sanatana Dharma comments but refuses to remove him as minister

The Madras High Court on Wednesday said that the comments made by State minister Udhayanidhi Stalin on Sanatana Dharma were “divisive” and against Constitutional principles and “should not have been made.”.Justice Anita Sumanth said making unverified claims about Sanatana Dharma amounts to spreading misinformation."Those holding constitutional positions can propound only one principle. And that is the principle of constitutionalism. Making unverified claims on Sanatana Dharma tantamounts to spreading misinformation," the Court said.However, Justice Anita Sumanth refrained from issuing a writ of quo warranto to remove Stalin as minister.The Court said that it cannot pass such a direction unless Stalin is disqualified under law from holding the post. "While the petition against Stalin is maintainable, Court can't issue a writ of Quo Warranto as no action under law has been taken against the minister that can cause him to be disqualified," the Court stated.The order was passed on a petition filed against Stalin, State minister PK Sekarbabu and Member of Parliament (MP) A Raja by the Hindu Munnani questioning their continuance in office despite such statement..On September 2, 2023, at a conference organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association in Chennai, Stalin had said that a few things must not merely be opposed but should be eradicated.“Just like dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or coronavirus need to be eradicated, we have to eradicate Sanatana,” he had said leading to widespread outrage..Office bearers of right wing organisation Hindu Munnani then filed three writ petitions before the High Court taking objection to Stalin's remarks.They sought issuance of a writ of quo warranto seeking explanation from Stalin, Sekarbabu and A Raja under what authority were they were continuing to hold public offices despite having participated in a conference calling for the annihilation of Sanatana Dharma..Senior Counsel P Wilson, who appeared for Stalin, had told the Court that the writ was not maintainable because Stalin had not breached his oath of office. Wilson had further said that Stalin had merely called for eradication of some problematic principles of the Sanatana dharma, particularly the ‘Varnashrama dharma’ that pertains to duties performed according to the system of the four varnas or class and caste-based division.The Court had then asked Stalin what was the basis of his comments and whether he had done any research on Varnashrama and Sanatan Dharma before making such comments..In its order today, the Court said that in equating “Sanatan dharma to HIV, Dengue, and Malaria,” Stalin had acted against constitutional principles.While such conduct makes a politician liable to disqualification, the Court could not issue a writ of quo warranto as prayed for in the petition in the absence of any action taken against Stalin and the others, the Court said..It, therefore, disposed of the petition.“Though there maybe ideological differences between leaders of different political parties, any statements made should be constructive and not destructive of nay faith,” the Court underscored. .[Read Order]