Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) leader Udhayanidhi Stalin told the Madras High Court that he has great respect for all religions and had no intention to belittle or disrespect any faith while speaking about Sanathana Dharma. “At the same time, it is my duty to speak about the irrational beliefs and discrimination prevalent in society in the name of religion,” said Udhayanidhi, who is the state Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development, responding to a writ of quo warranto filed against him at the Madras High Court by T Manohar, a member of the right-wing organisation the Hindu Munnani, with regard to the Sanatana Dharma row. A quo warranto writ challenges a person’s right to hold office.
Senior counsel and DMK Rajya Sabha MP P Wilson, who is representing the minister, argued before Justice Anitha Sumanth, that disqualifying a person from holding office as a minister for expressing a viewpoint on a particular issue would rob the person of their freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
The row began after Udhayanidhi spoke at the Sanatanam (Sanatan Dharma) Abolition Conclave organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Forum on September 2. His speech, comparing Sanatana Dharma, to dengue, malaria, and COVID-19 and calling for it to be eradicated, went viral, leading to a national-level controversy.
Caste, Manusmriti, Hindu reform, and Dr Ambedkar
In his affidavit, Udhayanidhi said, “The message I preach is what has been preached by the architect of the Constitution, Dr Ambedkar, and colossal Dravidian leaders like Thanthai Periyar, former Chief Minister Perarignar Anna, Kalaignar Dr Karunanidhi and Chief Minister MK Stalin.” Further, he argued that Article 25 of the Constitution, which the petitioner has alluded to multiple times, not only protects the right to freedom to practice and propagate a faith but also the “right to be a rationalist and atheist."
He also added in this respect that Article 25 assures the right to practice and propagate atheism. “In other words, it is not only a freedom to believe in God but also a freedom not to believe in God. In that context, an atheist has the right to practice, profess, and propagate his atheist principles the same way as theists do.”
The minister also spoke in his affidavit about social reform movements in Hinduism. Referring to Hindu practices like sati, child marriage, and untouchability, he argued that these were outlawed only through legislative intervention, adding that such interventions are a precedent for bringing in social reform against irrational beliefs, including caste hierarchies.
Recalling the 1925 Mahar Satyagraha—Dr Ambedkar’s movement to ensure access to public water tanks for Dalits—he said that Ambedkar had burned copies of the Manusmriti, the Hindu text that is considered the bedrock of caste hierarchy. The affidavit also quotes Dr Ambedkar’s views on the Manusmriti: “While addressing the crowd before burning the book, he said, ‘Let’s destroy the authority of ancient Hindu scriptures that are borne in inequality. Religion and slavery are not compatible.’ This is the speech of Dr Ambedkar himself, the architect of India’s Constitution.”
Udhayanidhi further pointed out that it was only through social reform of Hinduism and legislative intervention that the following laws could be passed: the Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, the Tamil Nadu Devadasis (Prevention of Dedication) Act, the Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu) (Amendment) Act—which legalised Periyar’s concept of Self-Respect marriages—and the Tamil Nadu Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act.
In this respect, Udhayanidhi has also contested a 1902 book that the Hindu Munnani had submitted as evidence with reference to the concept of Sanatana Dharma. While alleging that the book itself was ‘truncated’ and inadmissible in court, he pointed out that it admitted that Sanatana Dharma established caste hierarchies such as the belief that shudras were born from the feet and that it was their duty to “serve other castes.”
To emphasise his stance, the DMK minister has quoted several verses from the Manusmriti on women, the position of Brahmins, and lowered caste persons. Some of the examples Udhayanidhi has quoted in his affidavit include verse 154, which says, “Though he may be bereft of virtue, given to lust, and totally devoid of good qualities, a good woman should always worship her husband like a god.” and verse 414, which claims, “The Sudra was created by the self-created one solely to do slave labour for the Brahmin. Even when he is released by his master, a Sudra is not freed from his slave status for that is innate in him; and who can remove it from him?”
He further argues in the affidavit that traditional Hindu beliefs do not offer women an equal place in their homes or society. “The petitioner, by relying upon the book of 1902, wants to take society back to the dark ages, where men and women were not treated equal, where a person born to a ‘lower caste’ was shunned, ostracised, and treated as second-class citizen,” he argued.
Challenge to quo warranto writ
The affidavit recalls that the Hindu Munnani was founded by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and points to the RSS’s ideological links to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). These links, the affidavit alleges, expose the political motivation behind the filing of the petition ahead of the 2024 elections. “The BJP is the political wing of the RSS. The invisible hand of the BJP to seed its political ideology in the soil of Tamil Nadu,” the affidavit further says.
P Wilson, opposing the quo warranto writ, argued that the suitability for ministership is to be ascertained by the Chief Minister and not the court.
The counsel argued that the qualifications to be a minister are outlined in Article 173 of the Constitution and that the grounds for disqualification are mentioned in Article 191 and the Representation of People Act, 1951, adding that Udhayanidhi’s speech does not come under either ambit.
The case was adjourned for further hearings until October 31. Udhayanidhi has been asked to produce the complete video footage of the Sanatanam Abolition Conclave event and has also been directed to produce a copy of the invitation to the event.
It is to be noted that writ of quo warranto petitions have also been filed against Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Minister PK Sekarbabu and Member of Parliament A Raja. Justice Anitha Sumanth has noted that their respective representatives will be making their submissions after Udhayanidhi’s counsel completes his arguments.
It is to be noted that writ of quo warranto petitions have also been filed against Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Minister PK Sekar Babu and Member of Parliament A Raja. Justice Anitha Sumanth has noted that their respective representatives will be making their submissions after Udhayanidhi’s counsel completes his arguments.