The Sanatana Dharma controversy involving DMK scion Udhayanidhi Stalin witnessed new developments in the Madras High Court when Senior Counsel P. Wilson, representing the case, refused to submit a video clip of Udhayanidhi’s speech as instructed by Justice Anita Sumanth. The DMK counsel cited Article 20(3) of the Constitution, asserting that he couldn’t be compelled to do so.
Wilson urged the judge to instruct the petitioner to provide the necessary materials. He argued that Udhayanidhi was merely a participant, not an organizer, and the petitioner needed to substantiate their case independently. He also questioned why the organizer Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artists’ Association (the cultural and literary wing of the Communist Party of India-Marxist) was not involved in the case.
Senior counsel P Wilson made the aforementioned statements during the hearing of the quo warranto petition, which challenges one’s eligibility to hold public office. Members of the Hindu Munnani had filed the quo-warranto petition at the Madras High Court asking, on what basis were DMK Ministers Udhayanidhi Stalin and PK Sekar Babu and DMK MP A. Raja were continuing in their office after calling for the annihilation of Sanatana Dharma (aka Hinduism). The petition came for hearing before Justice Anita Sumanth.
During the proceedings, Senior Counsel Wilson argued that the petitioners should have approached the court with evidence rather than seeking it after filing the case. He emphasized that the DMK Ministers were participants, not organizers, and pointed to Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which provides immunity against self-incrimination. Wilson also accused the BJP of “politicizing the case” and conducting a parallel trial on social media. He said the details of the hearings were being misreported on Twitter by BJP Tamil Nadu President K. Annamalai and others.
However, the judge clarified that she would decide the case based on arguments presented in court and not external sources. Justice Anita Sumanth also emphasized that when the court requested materials, they must be supplied to assist the court.
The judge scheduled the next hearing for November 7, allowing time for Wilson and Advocate General R Shanmughasundaram to prepare a counter-affidavit in response to the petitioner’s application.
Earlier in October 2023, in an affidavit submitted to the Madras High Court court, DMK Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin said that he made the eradicate Sanatana Dharma remarks in “personal capacity” and not as a Minister.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram and WhatsApp and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.