On 6 March 2024, Justice Anita Sumanth, officiating at the Madras High Court, delivered a judgment in what has come to be known as the Sanatana Dharma case. In September 2023, Udhayanidhi Stalin, the minister for sports in the Tamil Nadu state government under the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, had spoken at a conference on abolishing Sanatana Dharma, convened by the Tamil Progressive Writers and Artists Association. He noted that any dharma that proclaimed itself as having existed forever, as Sanatana Dharma does, was bound to turn moribund and rigid. In this particular instance, it had become just that, and so had helped legitimise the caste system and foment hatred and violence. It therefore needed to be eradicated, he argued, as one would eradicate dread diseases. In contrast to those who abide by Sanatan Dharma’s “eternal” values, Udhayanidhi declared, Dravidian and communist ideologues favour a critique of all that existed earlier and set store by such change. He also pointed to the achievements of the “Dravidian” government ruling the state in sustaining a culture of peace and fraternity unlike the atmosphere of hatred and hurt fostered by those who claim to adhere to Sanatana Dharma.
A writ petition was filed in the Madras High Court objecting to the minister’s remarks. The petitioner asked that a writ of quo warranto be issued against Udhayanidhi, and that he should show cause as to under what authority of law he could continue to hold his post. The petitioner’s lawyer argued that the minister had deliberately or otherwise misconstrued the meaning of Sanatana Dharma, which was not the same as varna dharma, which prescribes caste duties and ordains caste-based vocations. Rather, the petitioner held, Sanatan Dharma was another name for Hinduism. In other words, the minister had sought to malign Hinduism.
Justice Sumanth ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable given that the “list of enumerated disqualifications” of ministers in law was not applicable in this case. Besides, in constitutional terms, this list was to be viewed as “sacrosanct … a Lakshman rekha that cannot be breached.” But, she went on to note, the minister’s call for the eradication of a religious value system was patently offensive – he sought to “spew hate against a particular community, the Hindus”, and his speech “constitutes disinformation.” The judge also acknowledged the sincere intent of the petitioner, who had approached the court because he rightly believed that Udhayanidhi was engaged in “the vice of disintegration and fomenting of fissiparous tendencies.” She further observed that the minister’s statement regarding Sanatana Dharma was based on ignorance of original Sanskrit texts on the subject. In this context, she referred to the readings of Sanatana Dharma produced in court by the minister’s legal team and noted that they drew from obscure texts that, therefore, may not be considered reliable.
This judgment is intriguing. For one, it repeats well-worn responses to the criticisms of Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma by individuals and parties that one may group under the broad umbrella of the Dravidian movement. These responses have existed for well over a century, going back to the roots of the Dravidian movement in the non-Brahmin movement formed under the aegis of the South Indian Liberal Federation, or Justice Party, in 1917. At the time, what was then the Madras Presidency witnessed protests against Brahmin dominance in public employment and education, and also sharp criticisms against the caste order and untouchability, as well as the justifications offered for these by Brahmin thinkers and ideologues. Predictably enough, the Brahmins defended their views, often with acrimony and contempt. But even when they did not, they expressed a certain bias that was not lost on their critics.