On Monday, April 1, the Supreme Court turned down the request of senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, P Wilson and Chitale, representing Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, to club multiple criminal complaints registered against him for his remark against Sanatan Dharma.
Stalin’s lawyers referred to the Supreme Court’s rulings in the cases of Amish Devgan, Arnab Goswami, Nupur Sharma, and Mohammed Zubair, where the consolidation of FIRs from multiple states was permitted and urged the apex court to club the FIRs filed against Stalin in similar lines.
The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, however, noted that Stalin could not claim to be in the same position as journalists or media outlets.
Sanatana Dharma row: Supreme Court says Udhayanidhi Stalin cannot get same immunity as media
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) April 1, 2024
Read more here: https://t.co/dgR8mZpRI7 pic.twitter.com/M2qiZQS5ID
“After all, you have made the statements voluntarily. And the cases you cited – those were news media people who were working as per diktats of their bosses to get TRPs. You cannot compare yourself to the media,” the Court remarked.
Singhvi then brought up the instance of former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, who was hounded and threatened by Islamsits from all around the world for her innocuous remark on Prophet Muhammad and Islam during a debate on Times Now. Referring to the multiple FIRs filed against Nupur Sharma in various States until they were consolidated and transferred to one state, Sanghvi said, “Nupur Sharma is pure politician.”
The Court questioned Stalin’s decision to file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, which provides remedies for the enforcement of fundamental rights, rather than using Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which gives the Supreme Court the authority to transfer cases and appeals.
Stalin was subsequently directed by the Court to modify his plea to bring it under Section 406 CrPC. The case was then scheduled for hearing in the week commencing on May 6.
Notably, last month, the Supreme Court had expressed sharp disapproval of Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s comments on Sanatana Dharma. “You are not an ordinary individual. You are a minister. You ought to be aware of the repercussions,” Justice Dutta had said rapped up Sanghvi who had then too approached the apex court, seeking the clubbing of FIRs against the DMK leader.
Udhayanidhi Stalin and his objectionable remarks on Sanatana Dharma
On Saturday (September 2), the Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development of Tamil Nadu said, “Mosquitoes, dengue, flu, malaria, corona – we should not oppose these things. They’ve to be eradicated completely.”
“The same is the case with Santanam (Hinduism). Our first work should be to abolish/eradicate Sanatanam instead of opposing it. So, my appreciation to you all for giving an apt title to the meeting,” he stated.
Later, he went on a tirade against the Hindu civilisational religious philosophy on social media. While taking to X (formerly Twitter), Udhayanidhi Stalin wrote, “Sanatan Dharma is a principle that divides people in the name of caste and religion.”
“Uprooting Sanatan Dharma is upholding humanity and human equality…I spoke on behalf of the oppressed & marginalized, who suffer due to the Sanatan Dharma. I spoke on behalf of the oppressed & marginalized, who suffer due to the Sanatan Dharma,” he reiterated his sinister plan.
Why Stalin and Nupur Sharma’s case cannot even be compared
It is quite disgusting that the lawyers for Stalin, who called for the genocidal destruction of Hindus, even dared to draw comparisons between it and the case of former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, who was harassed and intimidated by Islamists for merely quoting the Islamic Hadiths on Prophet Muhammad. The two situations are not at all comparable.
The DMK leader had vowed to uproot Sanatan Dharma and eliminate Hindus. Last year, on September 2, the Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development of Tamil Nadu said, “Mosquitoes, dengue, flu, malaria, corona – we should not oppose these things. They’ve to be eradicated completely.”
“The same is the case with Santanam (Hinduism). Our first work should be to abolish/eradicate Sanatanam instead of opposing it. So, my appreciation to you all for giving an apt title to the meeting,” he further added.
While Stalin had openly called for the genocide of Hindus, former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma had merely quoted the Islamic Hadiths on Prophet Muhammad. This opened the flood doors on her. Nupur Sharma started receiving death and rape threats from Islamists all over the world.
In addition, individuals who sided with Nupur Sharma’s remarks were also subject to beheading threats. In Amravati, Umesh Kolhe was killed by stabbing. A tailor named Kanhaiyalal was beheaded before opening his store in Udaipur. Along with this, many other people were also warned of dreadful repercussions. During protests, the “Sar Tan Se Juda” slogan was shouted.
Not just this, several Muslim nations had also issued statements against Nupur Sharma for her alleged blasphemous remarks.
Though she later apologised and retracted her statement, she continued to be on the radar of Islamists. Along with multiple death threats, several rabid Islamists had taken to various social media platforms to openly vilify, humiliate and threaten the ex-BJP spokesperson. After being ceaselessly hounded by Islamists who bayed for her blood and called for her beheading, multiple FIRs were filed against Nupur Sharma in different parts of the country.
In eight states, more than ten cases were filed against her, but the Supreme Court moved all of them to Delhi. Giving great relief to her, the Supreme Court also stayed her arrest.
It is notable that, Nupur Sharma gave this statement when she was provoked by Taslim Ahmed Rahmani – the other panellist on the TV debate – who repeatedly insulted the Shivling found in the Gyanvapi complex of Varanasi calling it a fountain. Moreover, the comments about the Prophet and his wife that she made is mentioned in Islamic texts, and Muslim scholars regularly mention the same.
