Udhayanidhi Stalin’s Sanatana dharma remarks amount to hate speech, says Madras High Court

Legal pressure on Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin has intensified. On Wednesday, the Madras High Court observed that his 2023 remarks on Sanatana Dharma amounted to hate speech. The comments had earlier sparked a nationwide political storm.

First, the court set the context. The Madurai Bench examined a petition linked to reactions against Udhayanidhi’s speech. During the hearing, the court made strong observations on the nature and impact of the minister’s remarks. It said the speech crossed constitutional limits and targeted a religious belief system.

Next, the court traced the ideological background. The bench noted what it called a sustained attack on Hinduism by Dravidian movements for over a century. It said the Dravida Kazhagam and later the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam carried this ideological legacy. The court pointed out that Udhayanidhi belonged to the same political lineage. It said this background mattered while assessing the intent and effect of the speech.

Then, the court expressed serious concern about selective legal action. It said individuals who initiate hate speech often escape punishment. At the same time, authorities act swiftly against those who respond to such speech. The bench said courts frequently question reactions but fail to trigger legal action against the original speaker. The judges described this trend as troubling and unjust.

Meanwhile, the court highlighted a key gap in enforcement. It noted that Tamil Nadu police had not registered any case against Udhayanidhi for his remarks. However, authorities in other states had taken cognisance of the issue. The bench flagged this inconsistency and questioned the lack of action within the state where the speech originated.

To understand the controversy, the court revisited the 2023 remarks. In September that year, Udhayanidhi spoke at a public event. He compared Sanatana Dharma to diseases like dengue and malaria. He said some things required eradication, not opposition. He argued that Sanatana Dharma conflicted with social justice and equality. He also alleged that it promoted caste and religious divisions.

Soon after, critics reacted sharply. Many leaders and groups said the remarks amounted to a call for violence against followers of Sanatana Dharma. They described the statement as a call for genocide. Udhayanidhi rejected that interpretation. He said he criticised an ideology, not people.

However, the High Court disagreed with that defence. On Wednesday, the bench clarified the meaning of the words used. It said that calling for the eradication of a belief system implied the elimination of its followers. The court said the correct legal term for such a call was genocide. It added that if Sanatana Dharma qualified as a religion, the statement could also imply religicide.

The bench went further. It explained that eradication could take many forms. It listed cultural destruction, environmental harm, and erasure of facts as possible methods. The court said the Tamil phrase used in the speech clearly conveyed culturicide or genocide. Based on this reasoning, the bench held that the minister’s remarks qualified as hate speech.

At the same time, the court protected the petitioner. It said questioning or criticising the minister’s speech did not amount to hate speech. It ruled that the petitioner had the right to respond to remarks that targeted a religious group.

As the controversy continues, Udhayanidhi has maintained his position. He has said he stands by his remarks. He has also insisted that he never called for violence against any community. Despite that clarification, the High Court’s observations have reshaped the legal and political debate. The focus has now shifted to accountability and equal application of the law.