The Supreme Court on Thursday (March 6) directed that no further FIRs or complaints be registered against Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin without its permission, in connection with his controversial remarks against ‘Sanatan Dharma.’
The bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar issued the order while hearing a plea filed by Stalin, seeking the consolidation of multiple criminal cases registered against him across various states.
The Court clarified that the interim protection earlier granted to Stalin would continue and would extend to the newly registered cases as well. Senior Advocates AM Singhvi and P Wilson, representing Stalin, informed the Court that a fresh FIR was recently registered against him in Bihar, prompting an amendment to his petition.
Multiple FIRs Over Sanatan Dharma Comments
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, arguing for Stalin, cited the Supreme Court’s approach in the Nupur Sharma case, where all FIRs related to controversial statements were transferred to a single jurisdiction. Singhvi requested similar relief for Stalin, stating that transferring cases to a single location would provide clarity and fairness.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Maharashtra, however, raised concerns over Stalin’s remarks, emphasizing their offensive nature and the public outrage they caused. He highlighted that Stalin’s statements had deeply hurt sentiments across various communities.
During the heated exchange in court, Mehta and Singhvi traded sharp remarks, with Singhvi accusing Mehta of addressing the media indirectly through his courtroom comments, leading to a brief heated exchange between the two counsels.
The bench, however, stressed that it was not examining the merits of Stalin’s comments but rather addressing the procedural issue of multiple FIRs. It then directed no further FIRs to be registered without the Court’s explicit permission.
What was the controversy about?
Udhayanidhi Stalin, Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, faced severe backlash after remarks he made describing ‘Sanatan Dharma’ as a regressive concept that needed eradication. Multiple FIRs were registered against him in Maharashtra, Bihar, and other states, accusing him of hate speech and hurting religious sentiments.
The case has now sparked nationwide debate over freedom of speech, hate speech, and the legal precedent regarding multiple FIRs for similar offences.
Case Title: Udhayanidhi Stalin v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 104/2024
