In a recent legal development, the Madras High Court has called upon Tamil Nadu's sports minister, Udhayanidhi Stalin, to provide information regarding the controversial speech he delivered, in which he expressed the need to eliminate certain aspects of Sanatana Dharma.

Justice Anitha Sumanth presided over the court proceedings, questioning the basis of Stalin's understanding of Sanatana Dharma and the research that underpinned his association of Varnashrama Dharma with this ancient Indian religious and social philosophy. The court also instructed Stalin to furnish a typed transcript of his speech.

This inquiry unfolds within the context of a legal case wherein Udhayanidhi Stalin, along with State minister PK Sekarbabu and Member of Parliament A Raja, are facing a petition from the Hindu Munnani, a right-wing organization. The Hindu Munnani has sought the removal of these individuals from their respective offices in response to a statement made by Stalin during a conference organized by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association in Chennai on September 2. In his speech, Stalin stated that certain elements needed to be not just opposed but entirely eradicated, likening this eradication to the elimination of diseases like dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or coronavirus. This statement incited substantial public outrage and prompted the filing of three writ petitions by the Hindu Munnani with the High Court.

These petitions, invoking a writ of quo warranto, aim to elicit an explanation from Udhayanidhi Stalin, PK Sekarbabu, and A Raja regarding the authority by which they continue to hold public offices, despite their participation in a conference where the elimination of Sanatana Dharma was advocated.

During the court proceedings on Wednesday, Senior Counsel P Wilson, representing Udhayanidhi Stalin, argued that the writ filed by the Hindu Munnani was not maintainable. He contended that Stalin had not violated his oath of office and clarified that Stalin's statement had specifically called for the eradication of certain aspects of Sanatana Dharma, with a particular reference to 'Varnashrama Dharma,' which involves the performance of duties based on the four varnas (caste-based divisions). This argument was presented to justify Stalin's statement and defend his position in the case.

Wilson emphasized that Udhayanidhi Stalin's statements were not unprecedented and cited the support of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who had also advocated for the removal of the Varnashrama Dharma. Wilson pointed out that the content of most of Ambedkar's speeches, where he called for the elimination of caste divisions, as well as Stalin's speech on Sanatana Dharma, drew heavily from a proprietary text published by Banaras Hindu University between 1902 and 1937. This was to show that such ideas had a historical precedent and were not unique to Stalin's remarks.

The crux of the argument presented by Senior Counsel P Wilson was that the principles of Varnashrama Dharma are deeply rooted in the Manusmriti, which serves as a foundational text for Sanatana Dharma. He contended that the caste divisions prescribed by this text are deeply ingrained in Indian society. As an example, he pointed out that caste-based discrimination persists, affecting even individuals of high public stature, such as former President Ramnath Kovind and his wife, who were reportedly prevented from entering the inner sanctum of a temple due to their Dalit background. This argument aimed to highlight the prevalence and persistence of caste-based discrimination in India.

After these arguments, the Court directed Senior Counsel P Wilson to provide copies of the invitation cards for the conference organized by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association, during which Udhayanidhi Stalin had delivered the speech in September. Additionally, the Court requested a typed transcript of the content of that speech. This request indicates that the Court is collecting evidence and documentation related to the case for further examination, suggesting that this legal matter is far from being resolved.