The Aryavarth Express
Agency(Tamil Nadu): The Madras High Court, presided over by Justice Anita Sumanth, recently addressed a sensitive issue concerning remarks made by Tamil Nadu Ministers Udhayanidhi Stalin, Sekar Babu, and MP A Raja against Sanatana Dharma. While the court refused to issue a writ of quo warranto to remove them from their positions, it did not shy away from expressing disapproval of their comments.
Justice Sumanth specifically targeted Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s comparison of Sanatana Dharma to diseases like HIV, AIDS, and Malaria as “perverse” and contrary to the constitutional principle. Furthermore, the court reproached HR&CE Minister Sekar Babu for participating in a meeting aimed at the eradication of Sanatana Dharma, stating that individuals in constitutional positions should embody and advocate constitutionalism, maintaining a constructive approach in their public statements, even amid ideological differences.
The court clarified that while the petitions were legally admissible, there was no immediate cause to disqualify the ministers from their roles, deeming the legal actions as premature.
The pleas were initiated by members of the Hindu Munnani Organisation, who argued that the ministers and MP violated the fundamental duties outlined in the Constitution, specifically Articles 51-A (c) and (e), which emphasize the importance of upholding India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity, and promoting harmony and brotherhood. The petitioners contended that calling for the eradication of a religion contradicts Article 25, which guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
In defense, Udhayanidhi Stalin articulated his stance against discriminatory religious practices rather than the religion itself, asserting his respect for all faiths and highlighting Article 25’s provision for atheism. Minister Sekar Babu justified his actions as efforts to abolish the caste system and promote societal equality, suggesting that the petition was motivated by grievances related to temple property recovery efforts. MP A Raja emphasized the primacy of freedom of speech and expression over religious freedom, advocating for open dialogue for societal advancement.
This ruling from the Madras High Court sheds light on the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the respect for religious beliefs in India’s pluralistic society, urging public figures to maintain decorum and foster unity in their discourse.
