Senior lawyer TV Ramanujam contended before the Madras High Court on Wednesday, October 11, that Tamil Nadu Sports Development and Youth Welfare Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin had committed a “fraud of the constitution” by asking for the eradication of sanatana dharma. The Court was hearing a petition filed by office bearers of the Hindu Munnani Organisation questioning by what authority Udhayanidhi Stalin was continuing in his position in public office.
Called quo warranto petition, if upheld, it can mean dismissal of the person from office.
Justice Anitha Sumanth, who was hearing the case, asked if the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MLA’s comments could be considered a part of free speech. Ramanujam responded saying that Udhayanidhi could not have made such remarks as an MLA and the state calling for the “eradication of a religion” violated Article 25 (freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion to all citizens) of the Indian Constitution. According to LiveLaw, Ramanujam said, “How can the state call for eradication? It is a gross violation of Article 25. He cannot commit fraud on the constitution and try to escape. He should not be sitting in public office.”
The petition filed by the Hindu Munnani Organisation stated that Ministers and MP (including PK Sekar Babu and A Raja) had taken an oath to serve the citizens without any bias and personal likes and dislikes but acted against it but participating in a meeting that called for the eradication of sanatan dharma. The petition said that the Ministers and MP had violated the fundamental duties of the Constitution under Article 51-A (c) (to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India) and (e) (to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities).
According to The Hindu, R Shunmugasundaram representing the state government, P Wilson representing Udhayanidhi Stalin, and N Jothi representing PK Sekar Babu questioned the validity of the petition that was filed against the DMK Ministers and MP. Wilson argued that the petition was “politically motivated” and had been “filed for publicity.”
It was also argued that the speeches against sanatana dharma that were presented to the Court in a thumb drive was not permissible as the High Court rules did not permit electronic devices. The Hindu reported that the counsel for the DMK Ministers and the state pointed out that even if electronic devices were permitted, they had to be submitted along with certificates issued by competent authorities as stated in Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
LiveLaw reported that the Court would hear the petitioner’s case and the objections raised by the respondents on Thursday, October 12.