Two petitions have been filed in the Madras High Court, urging it to issue a writ of quo warranto calling upon Sports Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Minister P.K. Sekarbabu to explain under what authority they are holding public office despite having participated in a conference calling for the annihilation of Sanatana Dharma.
A similar petition has been filed against Member of Parliament A. Raja for speaking against the religious principles at another meeting.
To get today’s top stories from the State in your inbox, subscribe to our Tamil Nadu Today newsletter
Justice Anita Sumanth on Friday directed the three writ petitioners to submit by October 11 proof of such participation and the speeches made by the three legislators. The direction was issued after Senior Counsel P. Wilson, representing the Sports Minister, questioned the maintainability of the writ petitions and contended that they were misconceived. He also pointed out that the petitioners had not submitted any proof before the court to back up their claims.
“A prayer for quo warranto can be maintained only if the petitioner proves that there is violation with regard to appointment to a public office or that a person holding such office had suffered any disqualification either under the Constitution or any other statute. In this case, no such disqualification is attracted. Holding a political viewpoint cannot be a disqualification,” he contended, and relied upon a few judgments to substantiate his arguments on the preliminary issue of maintainability.
The present writ petitions had been filed by Hindu Munnani State secretaries T. Manohar and J. Kishore Kumar and vice-president V.P. Jayakumar in their personal capacity. Despite disclosing to the court that they were office-bearers of Hindu Munnani, all three writ petitioners clarified that they had filed the present cases in their personal capacity and not in their capacity as office-bearers of the organisation.
In his affidavit, Mr. Manohar said the very act of participation of the Sports Minister in the conference, which was organised by Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association in Chennai on September 2 and called for the annihilation of Sanatana Dharma, was against the oath he took while being sworn in as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, and then as a Minister. The petitioner said an elected representative could not act against any community.
Not only did the Minister participate in the conference, but also he equated Sanatana Dharma to diseases such as dengue and malaria and asserted that it must be eradicated. In the same conference, Dravidar Kazhagam leader K. Veeramani had stated that Sanatana Dharma and Hindu Dharma were one and the same, but the Minister did not object to this. Therefore, it must be understood that the Minister, too, agreed that they were the same, the petitioner claimed.
“As an MLA or a Minister, he is supposed to be a representative of every citizen of the State, and a person holding the post of MLA or Minister participating in a meeting to eradicate the beliefs and faith of the citizens of the State, either majority or minority, is against the oath he has taken, and as such, he loses the qualification not only to be the Minister but also as an MLA,” the petitioner said, and sought the issuance of a writ of quo warranto.
A similar plea was made by the second writ petitioner, Mr. Kishore Kumar, against Mr. Sekarbabu. The petitioner questioned the propriety of the HR&CE Minister himself having attended a conference on the annihilation of Sanatana Dharma. He said it was common knowledge that the present-day Hindu religion was known as Sanatana Dharma in the ancient days, and that it meant nothing but Hindu Dharma.
In the third writ petition, Mr. Jayakumar recalled Mr. Raja having said at a meeting that Sanatana Dharma must be equated to diseases such as HIV and leprosy which carry social stigma and not just to dengue and malaria which do not. “The act of the Member of Parliament is totally against the oath taken by him and also against the principles of the Constitution,” the petitioner said.
