Ban on filing a new FIR against Udhayanidhi Stalin, the case is related to his comment on Sanatan Dharma.

The Supreme Court on Thursday banned the registration of any new FIR against Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin in the controversial remarks on Sanatan Dharma. While hearing Stalin's petition seeking to combine the cases registered in different parts of the country and hear them in one place, the court ordered that no new FIR be registered without the court's permission.

The court has also continued the interim order of exemption to Stalin from appearing in the court. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Maharashtra government, strongly opposed the ban on filing FIRs, calling Udhayanidhi's statement irresponsible. He said that Stalin had made a statement about ending Sanatan Dharma, just because the community which is being talked about ending does not react violently, it cannot be said so.

What statement did Stalin give?

Udhayanidhi Stalin had said in a program in September 2023 that just like dengue mosquitoes, malaria, and corona need to be eradicated, Sanatan Dharma will also have to be eradicated. Cases have been registered against Udhayanidhi in different parts of the country for this statement. Stalin demanded that all the cases be combined and heard.

The court banned the registration of new FIRs.

On Thursday, a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar heard Udhayanidhi's petition. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Stalin, said that the cases registered against Udhayanidhi Stalin should be combined and sent for hearing in Karnataka instead of Tamil Nadu. But the Solicitor General opposed it. But the court issued notice to the respondents in the newly added cases and banned the registration of any new FIR without the permission of the court.

The case will be heard again in April.

The case will be heard again in April. Opposing the ban on filing a new FIR against Udhayanidhi Stalin, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Maharashtra, said that if a leader from any other state had talked about eliminating any other religion, it would have created trouble. He said that just because the community which is being talked about eliminating does not react violently, it cannot be said so. But the court said that it will not comment on this because it will affect the case.

What else did the bench say?

The bench said that it is not considering the merit of the case, so arguments should not be given on it. Referring to the case pending in another bench regarding hate speech, Mehta told the court that that case should also be attached to this so that all religions are treated equally. Mehta said that in that case, the court has ordered to register a case. But the court did not agree to this.

Mehta was referring to the writ petition of Shaheen Abdullah which is pending before another bench. In that case, the court had asked the police to take precautionary measures like videography etc. on the apprehension of hate speech by a Hindu leader. In that case, the court had also given instructions to register an FIR.