6 March 2024 9:32 AM GMT
The Madras High Court on Wednesday refused to issue a writ of quo warranto against Tamil Nadu Ministers Udhayanidhi Stalin, Sekar Babu and MP A Raja to remove them from their posts because of the comments against Sanatana Dharma.
At the same time, Justice Anita Sumanth made critical remarks against the statements made by the Ministers and observed that those holding constitutional positions should not have made such divisive statements. The court added that Minister Udayanidhi Stalin's statement equating Sanatana Dharma to HIV, AIDS, Malaria etc was perverse and against the constitutional mandate.
The Court specifically criticised HR&CE Minister Sekar Babu for participating in a meeting for the eradication of Sanatana Dharma.
The court added that those holding constitutional positions should propound only constitutionalism and even if there were ideological differences between political leaders, any statement made publicly should be constructive and not destructive.
While holding that the writs were maintainable, the judge however said that no action had been taken against the Ministers which would disqualify them from holding the official posts and thus the pleas were premature.
The orders were passed on quo warranto pleas filed by office bearers of Hindu Munnani Organisation- T Manohar, Kishore Kumar, and VP Jayakumar in their personal capacity. The court had also, during the hearing, asked the Ministers what research was done to understand Sanatana Dharma before making the controversial remarks against it. The court also directed the Ministers to submit the texts of their speech and the texts of the materials relied upon by the Minister based on which he had equated Sanatana Dharma with Varnashrama Dharma which created a caste divide.
The petitioners had argued that the Ministers/MP had violated the principles of Fundamental Duties enumerated under Article 51-A (c) (e) of the Constitution which casts a duty on every person to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India and to promote harmony and spirit of brotherhood among all people. It was argued that when the duties are mandatory on every citizen, a person holding the post of Minister has more responsibility and is much more bound by the Constitution. It was also argued that calling for the eradication of religion was violative of Article 25 of the Constitution.
Stalin, on the other hand, argued that he had no intention to belittle or disrespect any religion and was only against the religious practices that discriminated against people. He also argued that Article 25 guaranteed not only the right to practice and profess religion but also the freedom to not believe in god and profess atheism.
Minister Sekar Babu also countered the plea and argued that the pleas were filed only because he had taken steps to recover temple properties that were allegedly encroached on by members belonging to the Hindu Munnani. Thus, it was argued that the petition was tainted with malafide. He also submitted that he had participated in the meeting in support of the annihilation of the caste system and untouchability and to promote equality in society.
MP A Raja argued that the freedom of speech and expression was placed much above the freedom of religion. It was argued that Article 19(1)(a) encompasses a wide spectrum of elements beyond just mere dissemination of information and positive ideals but also allowed fostering meaningful dialogue among the citizens for development.
Also Read - 'Abuse Of Article 19, 25 Rights' : Supreme Court Expresses Displeasure At TN Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin's Comments On 'Sanatana Dharma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 98
Case Title: T Manohar v Udhayanidhi Stalin and Another
Case No: WP 29205 of 2023