Madras HC says Udhayanidhi’s Sanatana remark could imply ‘genocide’

In what can be seen as a setback for Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, the Madras High Court on Wednesday (January 21) quashed an FIR registered against BJP’s Amit Malviya for his tweets criticising the former’s remarks on Sanatana Dharma.

Passing the judgement, Justice S Srimathy wrote that Amit Malviya “had only reacted to the speech made by the Minister”, and that continuing any proceedings against him for such reaction would be an abuse of the process of law and would cause him irreparable harm and injury.

The court also observed that while no case had been registered against the minister for his hate speech in the case, it was painful that a case was registered against the person reacting to it.

Udhayanidhi’s remarks on Sanatana Dharma

During a conference called “Sanathan Abolition Conference” organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association in 2023, Udhayanidhi Stalin had compared Sanatana Dharma to dengue and malaria, and called for its “eradication”.

Several cases were filed against the minister in the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court.

Case against Amit Malviya

The case registered against BJP’s Amit Malviya alleged that he had distorted the speech while posting the video of Udhayanidhi on his social media account, and that he had made comments insinuating that the minister had called for the genocide of “80 per cent of people of Bharat who were practising Sanatana Dharma.

Also Read: No new FIRs to be lodged against Udhayanidhi over Sanatana remarks: SC

The prosecution argued that Malviya had distorted the minister’s speech, had spread fake news about a call for genocide, and that he had shared posts in Hindi in order to create enmity between different groups of people and demolish the social fabric of the country.

The prosecution also said that Malviya’s post would fall under hate speech since after his social media post, a seer from Ayodhya had announced a reward of Rs 10 crore for beheading the minister.

Court’s ruling

The court ruled that Malviya had not asked anyone to start any agitation against the minister or the party but had only put forward facts and questions. The judge also wrote that Malviya had only sought replies from the minister, and that it would not come under the provisions he was charged with.

The court also observed that the minister had repeatedly stated several things about Sanatana Dharma, and that the overall circumstances leading to the present case would have to be considered.

Also Read: Sanatana dharma row: SC asks Udhayanidhi Stalin to amend plea due to 'legal issues'

The judge concluded that Udhayanidhi’s speech was against 80 per cent Hindus, and fell within the ambit of hate speech, and that his speech could even imply genocide.

The court said the word "abolish" would indicate that some existing thing should not be there, and in the present case, the people following Sanatana Dharma should not be there. It went on to say that if a group of people following Sanatana Dharma should not be there, then the appropriate word was “genocide”.