Unicaus NEWS
“To consider the issue (at hand), the alleged speech of the Minister ought to be seen, wherein he said ‘Sanatana Dharma should not be resisted or opposed, but has to be abolished/eradicated’. In Tamil, it is stated not as Sanatana ethirppu (opposing Sanatana), but Sanatana ozhippu (eradicating Sanatana),” the judge said.
“The entire case is on the word ozhippu, which is crucial. The word ‘abolish’ would indicate that some existing thing should not be there. If it is applied to the present case, if Sanatana Dharma should not be there, then the people following Sanatana Dharma should not be there. If a group of people following Sanatana Dharma should not be there, then the appropriate word is ‘genocide’. If Sanatana Dharma is a religion, then it is ‘Religicide’. It also means to eradicate the people by following any methods or various methods with diverse attacks on ecocide, factocide, culturicide (cultural genocide). Therefore, the Tamil phrase Sanatana ozhippu would clearly mean genocide or culturicide. In such circumstances, the post of the petitioner questioning the Minister’s speech would not amount to hate speech,” she said.
According to her, when a hate speech had been uttered by the Minister, the petitioner opposing the hate speech cannot be considered to have committed a crime. The petitioner had questioned whether the Minister meant genocide of 80% of the population, she said. “He has not asked any people to start any agitation either against the Minister or his party, but has put forth mere facts and questioned the Minister. The petitioner’s post is in the form of a question and seeking a reply, and the same would not attract the ingredients of any sections [of the penal code],” the judge said. Hence, if the present proceedings continued, the petitioner would suffer irreparable harm and injury, she added.
The judge said the party to which Mr. Udhayanidhi belongs had repeatedly made statements against Sanatana Dharma, and hence, the overall circumstances leading to the present case ought to be taken into consideration. “It is evident that there is a clear attack on Hinduism by the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) and subsequently along with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), for the past 100 years, to which the Minister belongs. While considering the overall circumstances, it is seen the petitioner had questioned the hidden meaning of the Minister’s speech,” the judge said.
The petitioner who is a Sanatani, is a victim of such hate speech, and has only defended Sanatana Dharma from the hate speech. The reply post of the petitioner would not attract any of the provisions of the IPC, rather the Minister’s speech would attract the provisions, the judge said.
The court, she said, “with pain” records the prevailing situation that the person who initiates the hate speech are let scot-free, but the persons who reacted to the hate speech are facing the wrath of the law. The courts are also questioning the persons who reacted but are not putting the law on motion against the person initiated the hate speech. In the present case, no case has been filed against the Minister for his hate speech in State, but some cases are filed in the other States.
The court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the present case against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law. The court is inclined to quash the FIR, the judge said.
In his petition, Mr. Malviya said at a conference organised in Chennai by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association in September 2023, Mr. Udhayanidhi had made a comment on Sanatana Dharma.
Mr. Udhayanidhi had said, “Only a few things can be resisted. Some have to be eliminated. In that sense, even Sanatana must be eliminated. We cannot resist mosquitoes, dengue, coronavirus. They must be eliminated. In that sense, even Sanatana must be eliminated.”
Mr. Malviya had posted on X: “The Minister has linked Sanatana Dharma to Malaria and Dengue. He thinks that it must be eradicated and not merely opposed. In short, he calls for the Genocide of 80% of the population of Bharat, who follow Sanatana Dharma.”
Mr. Udhayanidhi, in a post clarifying his remark, had said, “I never called for the genocide of the people who are following Sanatana Dharma. Uprooting Sanatana Dharma is upholding humanity and human equity”.
According to the complainant, K.A.V. Dinakaran, organiser of the DMK’s advocates wing, Tiruchi south district, the petitioner had misinterpreted the comment of the Sports Minister. The contention of the complainant was that the petitioner intentionally misrepresented the speech of the Minister with the aim of fomenting animosity among various segments of society, thereby eroding the sense of unity among them.
The contention of the petitioner is the statement of the Minister in itself is of a grave nature and has the potential to inflame hatred and encourage violence against the majority citizens of Bharat who follow Sanatana Dharma. The petitioner said he had simply extracted the speech made by the Minister that was already in the media and had expressed his understanding of the same and had questioned the objective and purpose of the same.
