Defending the “Eradicate Sanatana Dharma” remarks made by DMK scion Udhayanidhi Stalin, DMK MP P. Wilson appearing on the former’s behalf said that the Constitution provides not just freedom to profess and propagate religion but also atheism. He also said that if someone doesn’t like his speech, they need not listen to him.
The DMK MP was representing DMK Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin during the hearing of a quo warranto petition filed by executives of Hindu Munnani, which questions the eligibility of the DMK leaders Udhayanidhi, Sekar Babu and A. Raja to remain in office, having made statements against Hindu religion.
During the hearing on Wednesday, 8 November 2023, the Madras High Court sought clarification regarding the literature or source that Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development Udhayanidhi Stalin had referred to to interpret Sanatana Dharma as a belief system that promotes the caste system. This legal action
“Your understanding of Sanatana Dharma appears to be that it refers to Varnas or the inherent divisions on the basis of caste. What is the literature that was there? What is the research that was done to arrive at such an assumption?” Justice Sumanth asked.
P. Wilson, the senior counsel representing the Minister, explained that the Minister’s perspective was shaped by the speeches and writings of Dravidian ideologue E.V. Ramasamy, (known as Periyar by his followers), and B.R. Ambedkar.
Furthermore, the counsel highlighted that even the petitioner, T. Manohar, had drawn upon a 1902 edition of “Sanatana Dharma – An Advanced Textbook of Hindu Religion and Ethics,” published by the Board of Trustees of Central Hindu College in Benares.
The counsel underscored that the 1902 publication explicitly stated that Sanatana Dharma was rooted in four Smritis, including The Manusmriti, which promotes the caste-based division of society determined by birth. Consequently, the Minister’s statements were grounded in these published sources, as per the counsel’s argument.
When the judge highlighted that the Central Hindu College textbook was presented in court only after the filing of the quo warranto petition and inquired whether the Minister had access to the publication before delivering his speech, Mr. Wilson replied in affirmation.
He stated that it was a 1902 publication and that it was in the public domain and produced a translation of the Manusmriti in court. He also mentioned that Ambedkar had even gone as far as burning the Manusmriti as a symbolic act of rejecting the text that promotes caste-based divisions among humans.
When the Bench inquired about how Sanatana Dharma could be associated with The Manusmriti, the senior counsel explained that the answer could be found within the very 1902 publication that the writ petitioner himself had referenced. “The petitioner has destructed his own case. Your lordship can record it and close the case,” he said.
He said “Article 25 of the Constitution safeguards both religious beliefs and the principles of atheism. It grants the right to express one’s atheistic views, which is why there is no valid case against Minister Udayanidhi. Upholding the majority’s beliefs should not infringe upon the right to hold alternative opinions, a responsibility that the High Court must fulfill.”
He further added “Freedom of speech is one’s natural, basic human right. It must be protected. There are 8 reasons given in the constitution to limit one’s right to speech. Out of those 8 reasons, there is not a single reason given by the petitioner in this case. This case will waste the time of the High Court. The minister has also been asked to file a reply.”
The DMK MP also argued that the High Court can never take action on the ground that ministerial office bearers have violated the constitutional oath because appointing and removing a minister is a prerogative of the Chief Minister.
“The Eradicate Sanatana Conference was held in a convention hall from morning to night. If you don’t like the ideas expressed in it, why listen to it?“, DMK MP P. Wilson said defending the statements of Udhayanidhi.
Once Mr. Wilson had finished presenting his arguments, the judge adjourned the case to 10 November 2023 when senior counsel R. Viduthalai is expected to put forth the case on behalf of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Member of Parliament A. Raja, who is also facing a writ of quo warranto for speaking derogatorily about Sanatana Dharma – he compared it to HIV-AIDS and leprosy.
On 2 September 2023, Udhayanidhi Stalin participated in a conference titled, ‘Eradicate Sanatana Dharma’ and compared Sanatana Dharma to insects and diseases and called for its eradication.
(with inputs from The Hindu)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram and WhatsApp and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.