The Supreme Court has asked DMK minister from Tamil Nadu, Udhayanidhi Stalin, to respond on plea seeking the registration of an FIR against him for his derogatory remarks on Sanatana Dharma.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A bench comprising Justice\u00a0Aniruddha Bose\u00a0and Justice\u00a0Bela M Trivedi\u00a0told the petitioner’s counsel that whatever the leader said has hurt the sentiments of teeming millions belonging to a particular faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The counsel, however, said that the context of the remarks was eradication of a faith in an institution and nothing else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Court having heard the submission made it clear that this plea had nothing that could be tagged with any other hate speech cases pending before them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The remarks made by the DMK leader on Sanatana Dharma at a recent conference in Chennai were condemned by many and a plea was filed by Tamil Nadu Advocate B Jagannath through Advocate G Balaji against him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As per the plea, the conference where the remarks were made, should have been declared unconstitutional for being violative of the right to freedom of religion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The plea clearly prayed for a criminal complaint to be lodged against Udhayanidhi Stalin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It sought an injunction to restrain the Tamil Nadu Minister from making such remarks and to prevent the holding of such events in future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The petitioner in his plea stated that if the conference was on eradication of caste system and Varnashrama Dharma, then it was a welcome move, but the case was different here as the tenor and intention of the conference and the manner in which the same was conducted by the organisers was specifically done to spread hatred, venom and abuse against the Hindus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He emphasised on the word Hindu as it was very obvious that it was the Hindus who practised the Sanatanam Dharma.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The petitioner stressed that the remarks in question hurt the sentiments of Hindus and signalled at anarchy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The petitioner sought appointment of a nodal officer to look into such hate speech cases as per\u00a0the Supreme Court orders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Recently, a letter was addressed to Chief Justice of India\u00a0DY Chandrachud\u00a0by 262 eminent persons, including 14 retired High Court judges, seeking suo motu\u00a0action against\u00a0Udhayanidhi Stalin\u00a0for his remarks on Sanatana Dharma.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Madras Court said\u00a0that Sanatana Dharma was a set of eternal duties enjoined upon those who follow the Hindu way of life, including duties towards the nation, parents and Gurus. It questioned why such duties should be destroyed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Supreme Court has asked DMK minister from Tamil Nadu, Udhayanidhi Stalin, to respond on plea seeking the registration of an FIR against him for his derogatory remarks on Sanatana Dharma. A bench comprising Justice\u00a0Aniruddha Bose\u00a0and Justice\u00a0Bela M Trivedi\u00a0told the petitioner’s counsel that whatever the leader said has hurt the sentiments of teeming millions belonging […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":286236,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[246,64],"tags":[107055,20232,1290,93738,127987],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net\/IL\/uploads\/2022\/10\/06182154\/Supreme-Court-SC-collegium-Dr-Abhishek-Atrey-min.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/320961"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=320961"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/320961\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/286236"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=320961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=320961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=320961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}