On September 5, the apex court reserved the judgement after a marathon hearing that went on for 16 days.
The Supreme Court sought response from the Tamil Nadu government, DMK leaders Udhayanidhi Stalin and others on a plea seeking action against Udhayanidhi, on Friday September 22, for his remarks calling for the eradication of the Sanatan Dharma.
Udhayanidhi Stalin is son of the Tamil Nadu chief minister, MK Stalin.
A bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi also issued notice to MPs A Raja and Tholkappiyan Thirumavalavan and the Union home ministry.
The apex court also issued notice to Tamil Nadu DGP, commissioner of Greater Chennai Police, minister for Hindu religious & charitable endowment department, chairman of Tamil Nadu minorities commission, and others.
The bench was initially reluctant to entertain the plea directly in the Supreme Court and it asked the petitioner, B Jagannath, who is a lawyer, to instead approach the Madras high court on the issue.
Senior advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu appearing for the petitioner, Jagannath, said that if the remarks for the eradication of Sanatan Dharma were made by an individual, it would have been a different thing. However, in this case they have been made a person and others who are in the position of authority.
Naidu, assisted by advocate G Balaji, said they have called for the eradication of Sanatan Dharma. “They have called for the eradication of a faith in an institution,” the advocate told the bench.
Stating that it is a case of the state unleashing its machinery., Naidu told the bench that circulars have been issued asking students to speak against Sanatan Dharma.
“A constitutional functionary speaking like this is impermissible. Second, students should not be forced to speak out against so and so Dharma,” Naidu said.
Seeking to restrain Udhayanidhi Stalin and others from speaking against Sanatan Dharma, the petitioner Jagannath has sought a declaration that the participation of Tamil Nadu ministers in the meeting titled “Sanatana Dharma Eradication Conference”, held on September 2, as unconstitutional.
Seeking to restrain respondents the petitioner has also sought direction to TN Police director general to submit a report on how the conference held on September 2 was given the permission and why no action was taken against the participants and the organization which had arranged the gathering.