Group of 262 eminent people write to CJI seeking action against Udhayanidhi Stalin
HYDERABAD: A group of eminent personalities, which include 14 former judges of various high courts, 130 retired senior bureaucrats and 118 veterans from Indian armed forces, has written to the Chief Justice of India, Justice D.J. Chandrachud, requesting him to take suo moto notice of the Tamil Nadu government’s inaction against minister Udhayanidhi Stalin for his hate speech against Sanatana Dharma.
The eminent personalities requested the CJI’s intervention citing the Supreme Court’s observation while hearing a writ petition (Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India and others), where it had directed the governments and police authorities to take suo motu action in cases of hate speech without waiting for the lodging of formal complaints. “Such action is needed in order to preserve the secular character of the country. Any delay on the part of the administration in taking action on very serious issues will invite the court’s contempt,” the letter cited the Supreme Court as saying.
Since the state government has refused to take action against Udhayanidhi Stalin and therefore acted in contempt of the Court’s orders and gravely undermined or rather made a mockery of the rule of law, the group of eminent personalities said that they urge the Supreme Court to take the suo moto notice of contempt, ensuring accountability for the inaction of the state government of Tamil Nadu, and take decisive steps to prevent the inducement of hate speech, preserving public order and peace and we request you to take immediate appropriate actions.
Addressing a conference of Tamil poets, Udhayanidhi Stalin said, “Few things cannot be opposed, they should be abolished. We can’t oppose dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or corona, we have to eradicate them. In the same way, we have to eradicate the Sanatana (Sanatan Dharma), rather than opposing it.”
They further stated in the letter to the CJI that Udhayanidhi Stalin has refused to apologise for his remarks and reiterated that he stood by his remarks and offered ambiguities and nuances that did little to address the concerns raised by people.
