The Supreme Court on Friday (May 10) issued notice on a plea filed by Tamil Nadu minister Udhayanidhi Stalin seeking directions to consolidate various FIRs and complaints lodged against him over his controversial statements on 'Sanatan Dharm'. Agreeing to examine the plea, a bench presided over by Justice Sanjiv Khanna sought responses from various state governments in the matter.
On April 1, the Bench, also comprising Justice Dipankar Datta, had granted time to bring all the subsequent events by way of filing an application seeking amendment in the petition. The petition highlighted that except for one complaint case instituted before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, all other FIRs/complaints are pending before the states of Maharashtra, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir “which are currently ruled/administered by the Bharatiya Janata Party which is the ruling party at the Centre.”
Also Read: Supreme Court Disposes of Former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren’s Plea in Money Laundering Case
The plea contended that the DMK leader has been receiving threats to his life and will encounter great difficulty in appearing before different police stations and courts in different regions. Udhayanidhi Stalin had spoken at a function of Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers on the eradication of Sanatan Dharma, saying that it was against social justice. He also said that Sanatan Dharma must be eradicated like mosquitoes, dengue, malaria or corona.
The Tamil Nadu minister for sports and youth affairs had said, “It (Sanatan Dharma) has to be eradicated, rather than opposing it.” Later, he refused to apologise for his remarks and justified himself by stating: “I will say this continuously.” Earlier, the top court had said that it would not entertain a plea seeking contempt action against Stalin Jr. over his controversial statements saying that it would be “impossible” to hear individual cases across the country. “If we start entertaining contempt, we will be flooded with it. We will not go into individual cases,” it said.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor