The Supreme Court of India, on March 6, directed that no further FIRs or complaints should be registered against Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin in connection with his remarks on 'Sanatana Dharma' without its explicit permission. This ruling provides relief to Stalin, who had been facing multiple cases across different states.
The case was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar. Stalin had approached the Court seeking the consolidation of multiple criminal cases filed against him across various states. The Court extended its earlier interim order exempting him from appearing before lower courts conducting proceedings related to this issue.
The bench clarified that the interim order would continue to apply, covering recently registered cases against him as well.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, representing Stalin, informed the Court that a fresh case had been registered against him in Bihar. He further stated that an amendment application had been filed to include the complainants from Bihar in the present writ petition.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: No Transfer of S.138 NI Act Cases Under S.406 CrPC Due to Territorial Jurisdiction
Singhvi referenced past cases where the Supreme Court had clubbed multiple FIRs, citing examples such as Nupur Sharma, Mohammad Zubair, and Arnab Goswami. Highlighting the Nupur Sharma case, Singhvi remarked:
"In Nupur Sharma's case, the remarks were considered far more offensive, yet the Court transferred all cases to the jurisdiction where the first FIR was registered. The same solution should apply here."
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Maharashtra, opposed the plea, stating:
"It was during a 'Sanatana Dharma Eradication Conference' that the Deputy Chief Minister made remarks equating Sanatana Dharma with diseases like malaria, dengue, and COVID-19. Imagine if a Chief Minister from another state made similar comments about another religion."
CJI Sanjiv Khanna, however, intervened to emphasize that the Court was not addressing the merits of the case but rather focusing on whether the FIRs should be consolidated in one place. He clarified:
"We are not examining the content of the remarks at this stage, only the procedural question of transferring cases."
Mehta further contended:
"The affected community has not reacted violently, but that should not undermine the seriousness of the statement."
In response, the CJI stated:
"Mr. Mehta, we do not wish for the Apex Court to make any comments that could impact the trial."
Read Also:- Supreme Court Urges Centre to Address IFS Officers' Concerns Over IAS Appraisals
The hearing saw a heated exchange between Senior Advocate Singhvi and the Solicitor General:
Singhvi: "My friend is arguing for a different audience."
SG Mehta: "No, I do not have another audience. I do not hold press conferences."
Singhvi: "You're holding one right now inside the Court."
Supreme Court’s Order
After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court issued the following order:
"Issue notice to the newly added respondents, returnable in the week commencing... Amendment application is allowed. Notice to be issued to the newly added respondents upon steps taken by the petitioner. Liberty is granted to them to file a response within 15 days from the date of service. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed thereafter. The interim order will continue and will equally apply to the cases mentioned in the amended writ petition. We direct that no further cases be registered without the permission of this Court."
Read Also:- Madras High Court Orders Centre to Lift Ban on Ananda Vikatan's Website Over Modi-Trump Cartoon
Following the ruling, Solicitor General Mehta urged the Court to hear this matter alongside another pending case related to hate speech across the country. However, the bench declined, stating that the hate speech case involved broader legal questions.
Senior Advocate Wilson, appearing for Stalin, objected to the Solicitor General's arguments, stating:
"This is a purely legal matter. Political aspects should not be mixed with legal issues."
Background of the Case
Udhayanidhi Stalin had filed this case under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking relief from multiple FIRs lodged against him nationwide over his remarks on 'Sanatana Dharma'. His legal team argued that consolidating the cases at one location would ensure a fair trial and avoid unnecessary harassment.
Case Title: Udhayanidhi Stalin v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 104/2024
