LI Network
Published on: 16 September 2023 at 12:41 IST
In the midst of the ongoing discourse surrounding Sanatana Dharma, triggered by recent comments from DMK minister Udhayanidhi Stalin, the Madras High Court made a significant statement.
The Court acknowledged Sanatana Dharma as a collection of enduring duties assigned to followers of the Hindu way of life, emphasizing their responsibilities toward the nation, parents, and Gurus, while questioning why these duties should be undermined.
Justice N Seshasayee, a single-judge of the Madras High Court, expressed his awareness of the debates surrounding Sanatan Dharma and articulated his concerns on the matter through a judicial order.
While acknowledging that Sanatan Dharma was originally conceived as a way of life, Justice Seshasayee defined in conventional way that the misconception that it was primarily associated with promoting casteism and untouchability.
The Court firmly stated that untouchability, even if it could be argued as being permitted within the principles of Sanatana Dharma, cannot be tolerated. It emphasized that Article 17 of the Constitution of India has unequivocally abolished untouchability.
The Court’s comments were made in response to a petition filed by Elangovan, challenging a circular issued by Arts College that required students to share their opinions on the topic ‘Opposition to Sanadhana‘ on the birth anniversary of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and DMK party founder CN Annadurai.
While the Court disposed of the plea upon learning that the circular had already been withdrawn by the College, it seized the opportunity to articulate its stance on Sanatan Dharma.
The Court acknowledged the robust debates surrounding Sanathana Dharma as both pro and anti viewpoints view for attention.
Court elucidated Sanathana Dharma as a set of ‘eternal duties,’ encompassing responsibilities to the nation, the monarch, one’s parents and teachers, care for the underprivileged, and a myriad of other obligations.
Justice Seshasayee questioned the implications of the chosen topic in the contentious circular, suggesting that it could potentially undermine these sacred duties.
The Court encouraged the college to engage students in thoughtful reflections on the topic but also reminded everyone that the framers of the Constitution consciously established reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), rather than absolute free speech rights.
