A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin, as well as former Cabinet Minister A Raja. The plea alleges that both leaders made inflammatory statements against 'Sanatana Dharma,' sparking outrage among followers of the Hindu religion.

The petitioner, Advocate Vineet Jindal, who identifies as a Hindu and a follower of Sanatana Dharma, has claimed that his religious sentiments were deeply hurt by the statements made by Udhayanidhi Stalin. The plea contends that Stalin's remarks, which called for the eradication of Sanatana Dharma and compared it to diseases such as HIV and leprosy, amount to hate speech and have the potential to incite enmity among different religious groups.

The application also seeks contempt action against the Delhi Police and Chennai Police for allegedly failing to comply with the Supreme Court's directive to register suo motu FIRs in hate speech cases. This directive was issued as part of a broader effort to combat hate speech and promote religious harmony.

The petitioner has invoked various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to support the demand for FIRs against the DMK leaders. These sections include 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion), 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief).

This development comes within the context of the ongoing case of Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India, which seeks legal action against hate speeches. Advocate Vineet Jindal has filed two applications in this case – one to be impleaded as a party and another to request the Supreme Court to direct the registration of FIRs against the DMK leaders.

The case is expected to ignite debates around free speech, hate speech, and the protection of religious sentiments. Legal experts are closely watching the proceedings as they may set important precedents in determining the boundaries of expression and the consequences of statements that allegedly incite religious animosity.