Madras High Court Calls Udhayanidhi Stalin’s Sanatana Dharma Remarks an ‘Attack on Hinduism’

In a sharp judicial rebuke, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that the controversial 2023 remarks made by Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin on Sanatana Dharma amounted to hate speech and constituted a “clear attack on Hinduism.”

The court’s observations came while hearing petitions linked to reactions against the remarks, which had triggered nationwide outrage and intense political debate. In strongly worded comments, the bench stated that the language used by Udhayanidhi Stalin carried grave implications and went far beyond the limits of acceptable political expression.

Court says remarks implied genocide or culturicide

The High Court noted that comparing Sanatana Dharma to diseases and calling for its “eradication” could not be dismissed as a metaphor or ideological critique. The bench observed that if a belief system followed by a group of people is described as something that must not exist, the implication would amount to genocide, religicide, or culturicide.

The court further explained that the Tamil phrase used in the speech clearly suggested the elimination of Sanatana Dharma and, by extension, its followers. Such wording, it said, squarely falls within the definition of hate speech under constitutional and legal principles.

Expressing concern, the court remarked that individuals who initiate hate speech often escape legal consequences, while those who react to such speech are more frequently targeted by law enforcement. It described this imbalance as deeply troubling in a democratic society governed by the rule of law.

No action against minister in Tamil Nadu

The Madras High Court also highlighted that no criminal case had been registered against Udhayanidhi Stalin in Tamil Nadu over his remarks, despite the seriousness of the language used. The bench pointed out that complaints had been filed in other states, raising questions about selective application of the law.

The observations have added legal pressure on the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, particularly as the state moves toward a politically sensitive phase ahead of elections.

DMK defends Udhayanidhi Stalin

Reacting to the court’s remarks, DMK Organisation Secretary T K S Elangovan defended the Deputy Chief Minister, insisting that the comments did not amount to hate speech. Elangovan argued that Udhayanidhi Stalin was merely questioning the ideological meaning of Sanatana Dharma and was not calling for violence against any community.

Despite the judicial criticism, the DMK leadership has remained firm. Reports indicate that Udhayanidhi Stalin has refused to apologise for his remarks, maintaining that his statements were aimed at social reform and equality. The stance has further polarised public opinion, with supporters framing the issue as free speech and critics calling it an attack on religious identity.

Opposition welcomes court observations

Opposition leaders and Hindu organisations welcomed the High Court’s ruling, accusing the DMK of promoting anti-Hindu sentiment for political gain. They argued that the court’s observations validated long-standing allegations that the ruling party targets Hindu beliefs as part of vote-bank politics.

In a related development, the Madras High Court also quashed a case against BJP IT cell head Amit Malviya, ruling that his social media response to the controversy did not amount to hate speech. The decision added another layer to the legal and political fallout from the episode.

Legal and political ramifications

The High Court’s remarks do not amount to a final verdict on criminal culpability, but they carry significant moral and legal weight. The ruling has intensified scrutiny of political speech in Tamil Nadu, particularly when it intersects with religion and identity.

As multiple legal challenges related to the Sanatana Dharma controversy continue, the episode underscores a broader national debate on the limits of political expression, religious sensitivity, and accountability of those in power.