In a significant legal development, three petitions have been submitted to the Madras High Court, seeking a writ of quo warranto to compel Sports Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Minister P.K. Sekarbabu, and Member of Parliament A. Raja to elucidate the legitimacy of their public office tenure. These petitions question their authority to hold these positions, citing their involvement in a conference advocating the eradication of Sanatana Dharma, an ancient Indian spiritual tradition.
Justice Anita Sumanth, presiding over the case on Friday, October 6, 2023, directed the petitioners to provide evidence of their participation and speeches made during the aforementioned conference. Senior Counsel P. Wilson, representing the legislators, asserted that the litigants lacked substantial proof for their claims. The petitions were filed by Hindu Munnani office-bearers T. Manohar, J. Kishore Kumar, and V.P. Jayakumar in their personal capacities.
The petitioners have been granted until October 11 to furnish the required evidence.
In an affidavit, Mr. Manohar, the State secretary of Hindu Munnani, argued that the Sports Minister’s participation in a conference advocating the annihilation of Sanatana Dharma, held on September 2, 2023, in Chennai, contradicted the oath he took upon assuming office as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and later as a Minister. According to the petitioner, an elected representative should not act against any community’s interests.
Moreover, the Minister likened Sanatana Dharma to diseases like dengue and malaria during the conference, expressing a desire for its eradication. Remarkably, Dravidar Kazhagam leader K. Veeramani stated that Sanatana Dharma and Hindu Dharma were synonymous during the same conference, a claim unchallenged by the Minister. Consequently, the petitioner contended that the Minister implicitly accepted their equivalence.
“As an MLA or a Minister, he is supposed to be a representative of every citizen of the State, and a person holding the post of MLA or Minister participating in a meeting to eradicate the beliefs and faith of the citizens of the State, either majority or minority, is against the oath he has taken and as such he loses the qualification not only to be the Minister but also as an MLA,” argued the petitioner, who sought the issuance of a writ of quo warranto.
A parallel plea was made by the second writ petitioner, Mr. Kishore Kumar, also the State secretary of Hindu Munnani, against Mr. Sekarbabu. The petitioner questioned the propriety of a HR&CE Minister attending a conference advocating the annihilation of Sanatana Dharma. He emphasized that the contemporary Hindu religion was historically referred to as Sanatana Dharma, signifying its continuity as Hindu Dharma.
In the third writ petition, Hindu Munnani vice-president Mr. Jayakumar recalled Member of Parliament Mr. Raja’s statement in a meeting equating Sanatana Dharma to diseases like HIV and leprosy, which carry a social stigma, as opposed to dengue and malaria. The petitioner contended that this action by the Member of Parliament contradicted his oath and the principles enshrined in the Constitution.
This legal challenge marks a significant development in the ongoing controversy surrounding Sanatana Dharma and its place in contemporary Indian society. The court has granted the petitioners an opportunity to substantiate their claims, setting the stage for a pivotal legal battle in the days to come.
