The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently observed that Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s call to “eradicate” Sanatana Dharma has genocide-like implications. The court made these observations while quashing the FIR against Bharatiya Janata Party leader and party IT cell head Amit Malviya.
Justice S Srimathi quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Tamil Nadu Police against Amit Malviya for sharing a video of Stalin’s speech on X and questioning whether the statement constituted a call for the “genocide of 80 percent of the population of Bharat” who follow Sanatan Dharmalegal news website Bar and bench reported.
Read also | ‘Enemies of Sanatan Dharma’: AAP, BJP clash over CM’s Karwa Chauth event
“If there should not be a group of people following Sanatana Dharma, then the appropriate word is ‘genocide’. If Sanatana Dharma is a religion, then it is ‘Religicide’. It also means to exterminate people by following any methods or various methods with various attacks of ecocide, factocide, culturicide (cultural genocide). So the Ozh terms ‘Sanatana Dharma’ would clearly mean ‘Sanatanatanu’ Bar and bench he said, referring to the court’s ruling.
The case relates to a speech delivered by Stalin on 2 September 2023 at a conference called “Sanatan Abolition Conference” organized by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association.
In his speech, Deputy Chief Minister Stalin drew an analogy between Sanatana Dharma and diseases like dengue, malaria and COVID-19, saying that some things cannot only be resisted but must be eradicated.
“Sanathana Dharma should not be opposed or resisted but must be abolished/eradicated,” he said in a speech delivered in Tamil. He used the Tamil phrase “Sanathana Ozhippu” (eradication).
Amit Malviya shared a video of the speech on X and questioned whether the statement was a call to “genocide 80% of the population of Bharat” who follow Sanatana Dharma.
A complaint was then filed alleging that Malviya distorted Stalin’s speech to create enmity between groups, leading to the registration of an FIR against him for offenses under Sections 153A (hate speech) and 505 (proclaiming public nuisance) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Malviya then approached the court to quash the FIR. The BJP leader was represented by senior advocate Anantha Padmanabhan. Tamil Nadu was represented by Additional Solicitor General Ajmal Khan with Advocate Abdul Kalaam Azad.
During the hearing, Justice Srimatha ruled that the prosecution rested solely on the meaning of the word “Ozhippu” used by Stalin in his speech. The court noted that even according to the state, the word translates as “repeal.”
“Synonyms for the word ‘abolish’ are eradicate, remove, wipe out, annihilate, annihilate, annihilate,” the ruling noted.
Applying this meaning to religion, the court reasoned that such language necessarily went beyond abstract ideas. “If there should not be Sanatana Dharma, then there should not be people who follow Sanatana Dharma,” the court said.
In these circumstances, the Court held that Malviya’s post questioning the implications of the Deputy Minister’s speech could not be characterized as hate speech.
Read also | Tamil Nadu polls: AIADMK announces 5 key promises — ₹2000 for women
The court also rejected the state’s claim that the post incited the Hindu majority against other groups. “If such an argument were to be accepted, then it would amount to stating that the minister is inciting 20% of the population against 80% of the population,” the Court said.
“Mahatma Declared Sanatan Hindu”
Justice Srimatha also rejected the state’s attempt to justify the deputy minister’s remarks by citing historical and spiritual figures allegedly critical of Sanathana Dharma, terming such reliance as misinformed.
The court noted that Mahatma Gandhi had repeatedly declared himself a Sanatan Hindu, had read the Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, Mahabharata and Manusmriti and identified ahimsa as his chief virtue. The court ruled that Gandhi could not be portrayed as against Sanathana Dharma.
“This court notes with pain the prevailing situation that the person who initiates hate speech is left with impunity, but the persons who respond for hate speech face the wrath of the law,” the order said.
If there should not be a group of people following Sanathana Dharma, then the word “genocide” is appropriate. If Sanathana Dharma is a religion, then it is “religious murder”.
So the court allowed Malviya’s plea and proceeded to quash the FIR.
(With inputs from Bar and Bench)
