The Supreme Court on May 10 issued notice to four States, a Union Territory and several individuals on a petition filed by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin to club FIRs registered against him over his remarks on ‘Sanatana Dharma’.
A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta sought responses from the States of Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Bihar and Jammu and Kashmir where cases were registered against the DMK leader.
Also Read | Udhayanidhi, A. Raja’s remarks reflect ‘deep-rooted Hinduphobia’ of INDIA bloc: Dharmendra Pradhan
Mr. Stalin was represented by senior advocates AM Singhvi, P. Wilson and Atul Chitle.
Mr. Stalin had argued that his petition was not about merits of the case, but focussed on the question of procedure. He said the registration of multiple FIRs was a violation of his right to fair trial and amounted to “persecution before prosecution”.
“You abuse Article 19(1)(a) [free speech], you abuse Article 25 [freedom of conscience]. Now you are coming here under Article 32 [writ protection of fundamental rights]... You are not a layman. You are a Minister. You should have realised the consequences,” Justice Datta had observed during a March 4 hearing.
Mr. Singhvi had referred to instances in the past, in the cases of TV anchors Arnab Goswami, Amish Devgan and Nupur Sharma, when the apex court had intervened and clubbed the FIRs in one place.
“I may lose or win the case on merits. But this is persecution, making me run around. The FIRs are based on the same statement,” Mr. Singhvi had submitted.
The petition filed by Mr. Stalin had said it was well-settled in criminal law that only a criminal court within whose territorial jurisdiction the alleged offence took place would proceed with the case.
Mr. Stalin had made the speech at Kamarajar auditorium in Chennai. The jurisdiction would be vested in a court in Chennai.
Mr. Stalin had voiced apprehension that enquiries in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra would “certainly have political overtones” and affect his right to fair trial.
“Filing different complaints in different courts was a means to harass the petitioner and drown him in litigation. The petitioner will have to spend all his time travelling to courts across the country. He has already received grave threats, including death threats,” the petition had said.
