Opposing a writ of quo warranto filed against him for his views on sanatana dharma, Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development Udhayanidhi Stalin on Monday told the Madras High Court that holding a viewpoint against caste hegemony, preaching equality among all human beings and calling for eradication of social discrimination on the grounds of caste, creed and sex cannot be termed unconstitutional.
Arguing before Justice Anitha Sumanth, Senior Counsel P. Wilson, representing the Minister, said that by relying upon a 1902 literature on sanatana dharma, the writ petitioner, T. Manohar, a Hindu Munnani office-bearer, wanted to take society back to the dark ages, when men and women were not treated equal, and when people born into the so-called “lower caste” were shunned, ostracised and treated as second-class citizens.
“The present writ petition is politically motivated. It is a classic case of abuse of process of the court. A certain ideology which is opposed to the more than 100 years old Dravidian ideology is attempting to use the court process to settle political and social questions. While the Dravidian ideology speaks of self-respect, equality, rational thought and brotherhood, the opposing sect speaks of division on the basis of caste,” he argued.
It had been well settled that courts do not answer political, ideological or theological questions, he said, and claimed that a majority of the people of Tamil Nadu followed the Dravidian ideology, and it was they who had voted the Minister to power. Mr. Wilson accused the writ petitioner of having burked a statement issued by the Minister immediately after the speech delivered by him on sanatana dharma on September 2.
In the statement, the Minister had clarified that he had great respect for all religions and had no intention to belittle or disrespect any faith. At the same time, he was duty-bound to speak about irrational beliefs and discrimination prevalent in society in the name of religion. “If he does not speak for equal rights of people from all caste groups and the rights of women who were once forced into Devadasi and Sati, who else will speak,” the Senior Counsel asked.
He also told the court that it was the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the party to which the Minister belongs, that had paved the way for people from all castes to become temple priests, besides appointing women priests and granting them the right to enter the sanctum sanctorum of temples. The Senior Counsel also contended that the writ petitioner had produced before the court only a truncated part of the speech delivered by the Minister at a closed-door meeting.
After hearing him, the judge adjourned the case for further hearing to October 31 and asked the Senior Counsel to produce a copy of the invitation to the event where the speech was delivered, and also a compact disc containing video footage of the entire event.
The judge said Senior Counsel N. Jothi, representing Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Minister P.K. Sekarbabu, and Senior Counsel R. Viduthalai, representing Member of Parliament A. Raja, could make their submissions, in response to similar writ of quo warranto petitions filed against them, after Mr. Wilson completes his arguments.
