< Back
Supreme Court
Supreme Court
What If Chief Minister Of Another State Called For Eradication Of Islam? Tushar Mehta Tells Supreme Court That Hate Speech Against Hindus Is Being Treated Differently
|6 March 2025 6:00 PM IST
In a plea filed by Tamil Nadu Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin seeking the consolidation of multiple FIRs lodged against him in various states over his controversial remarks comparing Sanatan Dharma to diseases like dengue and coronavirus, advocating its "eradication," Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta appeared for the State of Maharashtra and strongly objected to Stalin’s statements, arguing that if similar remarks were made against any other religion, the repercussions would have been far more severe.
He told the Court that merely because Hindus do not react violently, hate speech against Sanatan Dharma should not be treated differently.
The Bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar took up the matter, with Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Stalin and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the State of Maharashtra.
Solicitor General Raises Concerns Over Differential Treatment
Arguing for Stalin, Abhishek Singhvi submitted that the Court had transferred all FIRs to the place of registration of the first FIRs in the cases of Arnab Gowaswami, Muhammed Zubair and Nupur Sharma. "In Nupur Sharma, the words were supposed to be much more offensive", Singhvi added. He prayed for transfer of FIRs to Karnataka in Satlin's case.
Reacting to the other instances referred to by Singhvi, Tushar Mehta took a strong exception to Stalin’s remarks and the title of the event that he attended- Sanatan Dharma Eradication Conference, stating that such statements, if made against any other religion, would have led to severe repercussions.
The SG submitted, "He said at the 'Sanatana Dharma Eradication Conference' that some of the things like 'mosquitoes’, ‘dengue’, ‘corona’ cannot be dealt with except by eradicating them. If a Chief Minister of another State would have said that any particular religion, say Islam, should be eradicated...," he argued, adding that Hindus, while tolerant, have the right to seek legal recourse through FIRs and criminal complaints.
To this, the CJI clarified that the Court is not dealing with the issue on merits; it is only dealing with the clubbing of FIRs. "We have a very limited issue before us," the CJI said.
"Merely because a community that is sought to be eradicated does not react in a violent way by threatening... irresponsible words by an individual," the SG argued.
"We, as an Apex Court, would not like to comment on any of the words," the CJI remarked.
Mehta also referred to a pending petition filed by a "public-spirited" litigant who frequently brings matters concerning one religion before the Court. He pointed out that in previous cases, the Supreme Court had not only ordered investigations into alleged hate speech by Hindu leaders but had also monitored them.
"Wherever there are similar speeches, the Court is directing registration of FIRs. Let that also be heard along with this matter," the SG submitted.
In response, Singhvi contended that the matter presently before the Court is merely for clubbing FIRs and that Mehta’s arguments were meant for a "different audience."
"Mr. Mehta's arguments are for another audience," Singhvi submitted.
Mehta, however, firmly rebutted this claim, stating that he does not hold press conferences and that his submissions were solely to ensure uniform legal treatment for all religions.
Solicitor General Seeks Parity in Hate Speech Cases
Referring to the Shaheen Abdullah's case, in which the Supreme Court under Justice K.M. Joseph had preemptively directed police surveillance and videography over apprehended hate speech by Hindu leaders, Mehta urged the Court to consider the same principles in the present matter.
He emphasized that Stalin’s remarks should be viewed with the same legal scrutiny to ensure consistency in the judicial approach.
In April, 2023, Justice KM Joseph had suggested that preventive detention can be used against people who regularly indulge in hate speech. After allegations that the Court was viewing only the speech against one community seriously, Justice KM Joseph had to clarify that his Bench did not ask for action against any one community and that action has to be irrespective of religion.
Earlier, it was reported that when the Solicitor General pointed out the instances of alleged hate speech against Brahmins by DMK leader, Justice KM Joseph smiled and the SG retorted by saying that it is not a matter to be laughed at.
Today, the Supreme Court issued notices to newly added respondents and granted them 15 days to file their responses, with an additional 15 days for rejoinders. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on April 28. It also directed that no further FIRs be registered against Stalin without the Court’s permission.
Earlier, an interlocutory application was filed before the Supreme Court seeking registration of an FIR against Stalin and Member of Parliament from DMK and former Union Minister A. Raja who had made similar remarks as Stalin. An FIR has been registered in Rampur, Uttar Pradesh, against Udhayanidhi Stalin and Priyank Kharge, the son of Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge for their alleged hate speech against Sanatan Dharma.
Prior to that, a letter was addressed to Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud by a group of concerned individuals including the retired Judges of several High Courts and bureaucrats seeking judicial intervention of the Apex Court in the matter of hate speech made by Udhayanidhi Stalin. Various others across the country have approached authorities seeking FIR against Stalin.
Cause Title: Udhayanidhi Stalin v. The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. [W.P. (Crl.) No. 104/2024; Diary No. 8398/2024]