Udhay, Sekarbabu, A Raja violated Constitution, argues petitioners’ counsel
The counsel also refused the petitioner’s submission of a pen drive containing the Sanatana Dharma speech video by citing 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Udhayanidhi Stalin, Madras HC
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court will continue to hear the quo warranto petitions filed against Ministers Udhayanidhi, PK Sekarbabu, and Member of Parliament (MP) A Raja on October 12.
Petitioners T Manohar, Kishore Kumar and VP Jayakumar, the functionaries of Hindu Munnani moved the Madras High Court seeking to take action against the Ministers and MP for their alleged comments against Sanatana Dharma.
Senior advocate TV Ramanujam appearing for one of the petitioners contended before Justice Anita Sumanth that the Ministers and MP cannot hold their office since they have violated Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
He also contended that they had breached the oath of office and made out fraud on the Constitution. As members of secularistic government, they cannot make comments to eradicate Sanatana Dharma.
Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram questioned the maintainability of the quo warranto petitions and senior advocate Wilson appearing for Udhayanidhi also denied the merit of the petitions.
The counsel also refused the petitioner’s submission of a pen drive containing the Sanatana Dharma speech video by citing 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act. Since the arguments were not completed, the judge posted the matter to October 12 for further hearing.
The petitioners stated that Sanatana Dharma is the basis of Hindu religion even though the Ministers and MP are the representatives of every citizen they acted against the beliefs and faith of Hindus, who are the majority in the country.
Further, the petitioners contended that holding the post of MLA or Minister and MP, they violated the principles of fundamental duties enumerated in Article 51-A (c) (e) of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the petitioners sought the court to issue show cause to the Ministers and MP under what authority of law they are holding their respective post as representatives of the people after openly hurting the sentiments of the majority of people.
