MHC reserves order of quo warranto against Udhayanidhi, Sekarbabu & MP A Raja

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Thursday reserved order in a quo warranto petitions filed against ministers Udhayanidhi Stalin, P K Sekar Babu, and Member of Parliament (MP) A Raja, for their alleged comments against Sanatana Dharma and the court also directed all the counsels to file written arguments.

Senior counsel R Viduthalai appeared for A Raja and contended before Justice Anita Sumanth that the petition filed against his client was politically motivated and not maintainable for initiating quo warranto. The counsel argued that the petition was made out as his client violated the constitution by criticizing Sanatana Dharma, but his speech was against untouchability, and inequality and advocated gender equality which was prescribed in the constitution, he actually propagated what is prescribed in the constitution.

Even though Raja is a Hindu he is against the discrimination of each others by caste which is the facets of Sanatan Dharma hence he propagates against it. He further contended that an MP can be disqualified by the President and he cannot be disqualified initiating quo warranto by the court of law.

Senior counsel T V Ramanujam appeared for the petitioner and coined A Raja's impugned speech as hate speech as it hurts the majority people of the country. He further cited the Supreme Court's order that if anyone is exercising free speech he has to be cautious that the speech should not hurt others. The counsel said that no one has the right to eradicate any ideologies and submitted that the quo warranto is maintainable.

Senior counsel P Wilson appeared for Udhayanidhi and replied to the submissions of the petitioner's counsel G. Rajagopalan who argued that the DMK leaders are speaking against Hindus.

The majority of the State and even the majority of the DMK's cadres are Hindus and it is the Hindus who have elected the DMK, said Wilson.

He further contended that the disqualifications for MPs and MLAs are the sole prerogative of the Parliament under Article 191 (e) and that the Courts should respect the separation of powers.

After all the counsels concluded their oral submission the judge directed them to file written arguments.