The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on a writ petition filed by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin seeking clubbing of criminal cases registered against him across multiple states over his controversial ‘Sanatana Dharma’ remarks.
The Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar orally observed that the cases would have to be transferred outside Tamil Nadu.
The Apex Court asked Stalin about his preference of the state and granted him exemption from personal appearance before the courts concerned.
The respondents were directed to file reply to the notice within four weeks.
Stalin had filed the instant case under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking relief in connection with the cases registered against him across the country over the controversial ‘Sanatana Dharma’ remarks.
In April 2024, the top court of the country asked Stalin’s lawyers to examine whether he could instead pursue an application under Section 406 CrPC for clubbing of the cases.
Stalin subsequently preferred an application seeking amendment of the prayer clause, which was allowed in May.
The Apex Court was today apprised that a total of three FIRs and five complaints have been registered against the Tamil Nadu Minister.
The counsel representing the respondents raised a preliminary issue, saying that there was a specific provision under Section 406 CrPC (power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals) and only the FIRs could be clubbed, not the complaints.
The Bench observed that Section 406 could have helped if the cases were before the same High Court, but these were separate offences in different states and also different charges in one complaint. This had to be treated separately.
Suppose there was Section 420. Everytime a deposit was made, different complaints were filed. Those cases were separate. If the offence was one, the registration of offences were separate.
Stalin’s counsel referred to the fact that an Ayodhya seer had announced an award of Rs 10 crore for beheading him.
The Bench responded that there could be people of this nature, but they should not be taken as a threat.
The names of Kerala, Bangalore and Patna came up during the hearing for the trial of the cases.
The Apex Court briefly considered Bangalore to be a good prospect, when it was pointed out that a case was already pending there.
However, doubts arose when it was highlighted that the case in Bangalore has been stayed, albeit qua co-accused.