Today, the Supreme Court agrees to hear a plea seeking the registration of FIR against Tamil Nadu minister and DMK leader Udhayanidhi Stalin over his remarks on 'Sanatana Dharma'.

Additionally, the petition also raised concerns regarding a 'Sanatana Dharma Eradication Conference,' during which the minister purportedly made remarks that ignited a political controversy.

A bench consisting of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi was presiding over a writ petition filed by Chennai-based lawyer B Jagannath. The petition sought a directive to restrain Stalin and others from making additional statements concerning 'Sanatana Dharma.' It also requested a declaration that the conference held on September 2 in Tamil Nadu, organized by the Tamil Nadu Murpoku Ezuthalar Sangam, was unconstitutional.

In its petition, Adv Balaji demanded declaration be made stating that the participation of the state ministers in the Sanatan Dharma Eradication Conference held on September 2 was unconstitutional, which violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution. In addition, he also requested an investigation from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to determine if there is any element of terrorist funding, particularly from the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers, involved in cross-border activities and outside India.

Justice Bose suggested to Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, representing the petitioner, that he should consider bringing this matter before the high court. However, the senior counsel continued to insist on the Supreme Court's involvement, citing the interim relief previously granted by the court in similar applications seeking action against hate speech. He argued -

"I would understand if an individual rants against a particular community or group of people. But, it is concerning when the State unleashes its machinery. Circulars have been issued directing students to speak against a particular faith. Can a constitutional authority make such speeches? These are impermissible. A batch of petitions has already been admitted, I should not be asked to go to the high court now. The court has issued interim directions earlier when it came to individuals. Here, I am concerned with the State."

Even though the bench initially expressed its disinclination to entertain the petition, it eventually accepted the senior counsel's appeals to issue notice. The court, however, refused to tag the matter with the clutch of petitions on hate speech at this stage. 

Justice Bose also expressed his disapproval of litigants directly approaching the Supreme Court. "Why can you not go to the high court? You are converting us into a police station," the judge exclaimed.

Case : B Jagannath v. The State of Tamil Nadu| W.P.(C) No. 1001/2023

Also Read - Udhayanidhi faces controversy following his remarks on Sanatana Dharma; SC to hear petition Today