In a significant setback for DMK leader and Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, the Madras High Court has stated that his 2023 remarks about Sanatana Dharma amounted to “hate speech.”
The court made this observation while quashing an FIR filed by the Tiruchi city police against BJP leader Amit Malviya, who was accused of distorting Udhayanidhi’s comments.
Justice S. Sreemathy, while delivering the judgment, noted that Udhayanidhi had said that Sanatana Dharma should not merely be opposed but should be “abolished or eradicated.” The judge pointed out that the Tamil expression used by the minister was not Sanatana ethirppu (opposition to Sanatana) but Sanatana ozhippu (eradication of Sanatana).
“The minister’s remarks amount to hate speech,” the judge stated, adding that Malviya, as a follower of Sanatan Dharma, had simply defended his faith.
Udhayanidhi had made the controversial remarks at a conference in Chennai in 2023, where he compared Sanatana Dharma to diseases like malaria and dengue, stating that it should not just be opposed but eradicated. He said, "A few things cannot be merely opposed but must be abolished. We can’t just oppose dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or corona. They must be eradicated. Rather than opposing Sanatana, it should be eradicated."
His statement sparked a massive political uproar, with widespread criticism from various quarters.
In response, Malviya posted on social media, accusing Udhayanidhi of calling for the genocide of Hindus. "Udhayanidhi Stalin, son of Tamil Nadu CM M.K. Stalin, and a minister in the DMK government, has linked Sanatana Dharma to malaria and dengue. He believes it must be eradicated and not merely opposed. In short, he is calling for the genocide of 80% of the population of Bharat who follow Sanatan Dharma,” Malviya wrote.
Following this, the Tiruchi police filed an FIR against Malviya under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including those related to promoting enmity and public mischief, in connection with his social media post.
Meanwhile, the high court expressed its concern over why no action had been taken against the person who originally made the controversial remarks. “The courts are questioning those who reacted, but the law is not being set in motion against the person who initiated the hate speech,” the judge remarked.
