Udhayanidhi Stalin’s ‘eradicate Sanatana’ remark implies genocide, says Madras HC, quashes FIR against Amit Malviya

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently observed that Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin’s call to “eradicate” Sanatana Dharma carries an implication akin to genocide. The court made these observations while quashing an FIR against Bharatiya Janata Party leader and party’s IT Cell head Amit Malviya.

Justice S Srimathy quashed the first information report (FIR) registered by Tamil Nadu Police against Amit Malviya for sharing a video of Stalin's speech on X and questioning whether the statement amounted to a call for the “genocide of 80 per cent of the population of Bharat” who follow Sanatana Dharma, legal news website Bar and Bench reported.

"If a group of people following Sanatana Dharma should not be there, then the appropriate word is “genocide”. If Sanatana Dharma is a religion then it is “Religicide”. It also means to eradicate the people by following any methods or various methods with diverse attacks on ecocide, factocide, culturicide (cultural genocide). Therefore, the Tamil phrase “Sanathana Ozhippu” would clearly mean genocide or culturicide," Bar and Bench quoting the Court as saying.

The case is regarding a speech delivered by Stalin on September 2, 2023 at a conference titled “Sanatan Abolition Conference”, organised by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers Artists Association.

In his address, Deputy Chief Minister Stalin drew an analogy between Sanatana Dharma and diseases such as dengue, malaria and COVID-19, and said that certain things cannot merely be resisted but must be eradicated.

“Sanathana Dharma should not be resisted or opposed but it has to be abolished / eradicated,” he said in a speech delivered in Tamil. He used the Tamil phrase “Sanathana Ozhippu” (eradication).

Amit Malviya shared a video of this speech on X and questioned whether the statement amounted to a call for the “genocide of 80% of the population of Bharat” who follow Sanatana Dharma.

A complaint was then lodged alleging that Malviya had distorted Stalin’s speech to provoke enmity between groups, leading to the registration of FIR against him for offences under Sections 153A (hate speech) and 505 (statements conducing public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Malviya then approached the Court to quash the FIR. The BJP leader was represented by Senior Advocate Anantha Padmanabhan. Tamil Nadu was represented by Additional Advocate General Ajmal Khan with advocate Abdul Kalaam Azad.

During the hearing, Justice Srimathy held that the prosecution rested entirely on the meaning of the word “Ozhippu" used by Stalin in his speech. The court noted that even according to the State, the word translates to “abolish.”

“The synonyms for the word ‘abolish’ are eradicate, eliminate, exterminate, destroy, annihilate, wipe out,” the judgment recorded.

Applying this meaning to a religion, the Court reasoned that such language necessarily extends beyond abstract ideas. “If Sanathana Dharma should not be there, then the people following Sanatana Dharma should not be there,” the Court said.

In these circumstances, the Court held, Malviya’s post questioning the implications of the Minister’s speech could not be characterised as hate speech.

The Court also rejected the State’s contention that the post instigated the Hindu majority against other groups. “If such an argument is accepted, then it would amount to stating that the minister is instigating the 20% population against the 80% population,” the Court said.

Justice Srimathy also rejected the State’s attempt to justify the Minister’s remarks by citing historical and spiritual figures allegedly critical of Sanathana Dharma, calling such reliance misinformed.

The Court noted that Mahatma Gandhi had repeatedly declared himself a Sanatani Hindu, had read the Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, Mahabharata and Manusmriti, and identified ahimsa as his core virtue. Gandhi, the Court held, could not be portrayed as being against Sanathana Dharma.

"This Court with pain records the prevailing situation that the person who initiates the hate speech are let scot-free, but the persons who reacted for the hate speech are facing the wrath of the law," the order noted.

Hence, it allowed Malviya's petition and proceeded to quash the FIR.

(With inputs from Bar and Bench)