In a major development, the Madras High Court on Wednesday ruled that Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s 2023 comments on Sanatana Dharma amount to hate speech. The remarks, made at the Sanatan Abolition Conference in September 2023, had triggered widespread political controversy across India.
High Court Observes Longstanding Pattern
The Madurai Bench of the High Court, in a strongly worded statement, noted that the Dravidian movement has historically targeted Hinduism. The court stated that Stalin’s speech was consistent with this ideological tradition, as per a report on The New Indian Express.
The court observed that it was evident there had been a clear attack on Hinduism by the Dravida Kazhagam and, subsequently, by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam for the past 100 years, to which the Minister belonged. It highlighted this as the broader context of the remarks.
Hate Speech Declared, BJP Leader Cleared
Justice S. Srimathy, while allowing a petition by BJP leader Amit Malviya to quash a case against him, clarified that the minister’s comments were aimed at Hindus who follow Sanatana Dharma. “The minister’s remarks amount to hate speech,” she said, adding that Malviya’s response, which reproduced the speech, could not be treated as criminal since it did not incite violence or agitation, reported India Today.
The judge referred to an earlier March 2024 Madras High Court order that had similarly classified Stalin’s remarks as hate speech in a separate writ petition. She noted that the central term “Ozhippu” (abolish), as used in the context of “Sanatana Ozhippu,” could be interpreted as suggesting genocide or culturicide.
Case Background & Legal Implications
The matter arose from an FIR filed by Tiruchy police following a complaint from DMK advocate wing district organiser K.A.V. Thinakaran. Thinakaran alleged that Malviya had misrepresented Stalin’s speech to provoke communal animosity. Malviya, however, argued that he had only shared the minister’s publicly available remarks and questioned the original intent and meaning.
Justice Srimathy concluded that while Malviya’s post was not criminal, Stalin’s own remarks crossed the legal threshold for hate speech. The ruling intensifies scrutiny on the deputy chief minister and could have wider political repercussions for Tamil Nadu’s ruling party.
