Tamil Nadu Youth Affairs and Sports Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin.
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to examine a plea by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin seeking a direction to club the criminal cases registered against him across multiple states in connection with his controversial remarks on 'Sanatana Dharma'.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar, however, said that the cases against Stalin should go outside Tamil Nadu.
"You can't be in the state of Tamil Nadu, you will have to go out...tell us which is the most convenient state,” the bench asked his counsel.
Udhayanidhi, the Minister of Youth Welfare and Sports in Tamil Nadu, is a well-known film actor and son of Chief Minister and DMK chief M K Stalin.
Speaking at a conference in September 2023, he said Sanatana Dharma is against social justice and equality and should be "eradicated'. He also likened Sanatana Dharma to coronavirus, malaria and dengue and said it should be destroyed.
He filed a petition seeking the consolidation of three FIRs and five complaints filed in Jammu and Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Maharashtra, and Karnataka and the transfer of the same to one of the criminal courts/ police stations.
In May this year, the court had allowed the amendment petition to include one more criminal case in the prayer.
On Wednesday, senior advocate P Wilson, representing Stalin, submitted that three FIRs have been filed in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, and five criminal complaints have been filed in five different places/ States for the speech made by petitioner in September 2023.
Wilson submitted that the right to free trial is a fundamental right, and for one speech, there cannot be different complaints and FIRs in other states. He said all the cases and FIRs should be consolidated and transferred to one criminal court and police station.
He also submitted that due to the pendency of the writ petitions before the Supreme Court without any stay, the criminal courts have taken advantage of this and started insisting upon Stalin's appearance, therefore, his appearance before the criminal courts has to be dispensed with.
Senior advocate A M Singhvi, also for Stalin, submitted that there are three judgments wherein the Supreme court exercised power of consolidation and transfer and hence writ petition is maintainable.
A counsel, appearing for one of the respondents’, submitted that all cases have to be consolidated and transferred to Uttar Pradesh or Delhi and that would be easier for complainants.
Wilson opposed the contention, saying that someone in Uttar Pradesh had announced a reward of Rs 10 crore to behead Stalin, and therefore it would not be appropriate to have the matter conducted at either Uttar Pradesh or Delhi. The court ordered dispensing with the appearance of Stalin before the respective criminal courts.