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.
'Atheist Krishna', who created a unique identity in the digital world due to his memes, is no mor
These days, there is a lot of debate in the country about the Mughal ruler Aurangzeb. Politics ha
BSF has given the latest information about the situation in Murshidabad, West Bengal after the vi
The T20 World Cup 2026 is scheduled to begin on February 7, 2026, but before the start of the tou
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna retired on Tuesday, May 13, and handed over his charge
The triple suicide case in Ghaziabad's 'Bharat City' society has shaken everyone. Actor Sonu Sood
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor's comments on dynastic politics have sparked an uproar. While the Cong
Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) on Monday strongly criticised Rajya Sabha MP and actor Kamal Haasan f
The Supreme Court will hear petitions against the constitutional validity of the Waqf (Amendment)
Union Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri has said that a large reserve of crude oil and gas ha
