Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin finds himself entangled in a legal quagmire following his contentious remarks regarding Sanatana Dharma in 2023. The Supreme Court, addressing Stalin's plea today to amalgamate multiple criminal complaints against him, firmly iterated that he couldn't equate his situation with that of journalists or media entities. 

This pronouncement came after Stalin endeavored to draw parallels with legal precedents involving media figures such as Arnab Goswami and Mohammed Zubair.

Stalin's remarks, drawing an analogy between the eradication of Sanatana Dharma and the control of diseases like dengue and malaria, ignited a firestorm of controversy and legal repercussions. Various complaints have been registered against him across multiple states in India, mirroring the widespread condemnation his statements incurred. 

Despite his efforts to elucidate that his statements were not aimed at disparaging Hinduism but rather addressing caste-based discrimination, legal challenges continue to mount against him.

In response to Stalin's petition before the Supreme Court, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta raised pertinent questions regarding the legal basis of his approach. 

They suggested that Stalin should have invoked Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of Article 32 of the Constitution.

The High Court, while declining to oust Stalin from his ministerial position, censured his remarks as divisive and antithetical to constitutional principles. It underscored the critical importance of disseminating accurate information regarding Sanatana Dharma, emphasizing that disseminating unverified claims constitutes the propagation of misinformation.

During previous hearings, the Supreme Court expressed apprehensions regarding Stalin's exercise of free speech, intimating that he should have exercised greater circumspection considering the potential ramifications of his statements.

Case: Udhayanidhi Stalin vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.