262 Eminent Persons, Including Retired High Court Judges, Urge CJI for Suo Motu Action Against Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin Over Controversial Remarks
In a significant development, 262 prominent individuals, comprising 14 retired High Court judges, have jointly penned a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), DY Chandrachud. The letter fervently implores the apex court to initiate suo motu action against Tamil Nadu’s Minister for Information and Publicity, Udhayanidhi Stalin, in light of his contentious remarks concerning Sanatan Dharma.
The letter, undersigned by a diverse group of eminent personalities, articulates the deep anguish felt by common Indian citizens, especially those who hold Sanatan Dharma dear, due to Stalin’s inflammatory statements. Concerns have been raised about the potential for his remarks to incite communal discord and sectarian violence, necessitating swift and judicious action.
The roster of retired judges lending their support to the letter is impressive and includes luminaries such as Justice K Sreedhar Rao, former Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court; Justice SM Soni, former judge of the Gujarat High Court and Lokayukta of Gujarat; Justice SN Dhingra, former judge of the Delhi High Court; and several others with illustrious legal careers spanning various High Courts.
Among the signatories are also 130 former bureaucrats, including 20 ambassadors, and 118 retired armed forces officers, who have united in their call for accountability and respect for religious sentiments.
The contentious remarks that sparked this letter were made by Udhayanidhi Stalin during a press conference, where the leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) expressed the view that Sanatan Dharma should be eradicated. His exact words were, “Few things cannot be opposed, they should be abolished. We can’t oppose dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or corona, we have to eradicate them. In the same way, we have to eradicate the Sanatana (Sanatan Dharma), rather than opposing it.” Furthermore, he reportedly asserted that Sanatan Dharma subjugated women and denied them the freedom to leave their homes.
Drawing attention to a previous Supreme Court judgment in the case of Shaheen Abdulla vs. Union of India, the letter highlights the court’s emphasis on the importance of religious harmony for societal fraternity. In that case, the Supreme Court expressed its concern over the rising incidents of hate speech and directed the government and police to take suo motu action against hate speech without awaiting formal complaints.
The letter underscores the significance of Sanatan Dharma for Hindus in India, portraying it as a set of beliefs that allow individuals the freedom to choose their mode of worship. It strongly condemns Stalin’s hate speech against these beliefs and his refusal to apologize for his remarks, instead indicating his intent to persist with such statements.
Additionally, the letter underscores the inaction of the Tamil Nadu State Government, which not only failed to take action against Stalin but also endorsed his remarks. As such, the signatories urge the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the allegedly contemptuous remarks and take decisive steps to curb hate speech, with the aim of preserving public order and peace.
