Sanatana Dharma row takes new turn after DMK reacts to Madras High Court ruling

Sanatana Dharma row once again entered the political spotlight after the ruling DMK openly criticised a recent Madras High Court judgment related to the controversy involving Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin. The party termed the judgment “wrong” and raised concerns about judicial reasoning, stating that personal beliefs of judges should not influence court rulings.

The reaction came after the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed an FIR filed against BJP IT cell chief Amit Malviya. The FIR was related to allegations that Malviya had distorted remarks made by Udhayanidhi Stalin during a public speech on Sanatana Dharma. The court, while quashing the FIR, observed that those who allegedly initiated hate speech appeared to go unpunished while those reacting to it were facing legal action.

Responding to the ruling, DMK spokesperson Saravanan Annadurai stated that the judgment failed to follow established principles of law. He said that no individual should be condemned without being heard, referring to the legal principle of Audi Alteram Partem. According to him, the judgment did not adequately reflect this basic rule of jurisprudence.

Annadurai also objected to what he described as ideological observations within the judgment. He stressed that judicial orders should remain neutral and free from personal belief systems, especially in politically sensitive matters such as the Sanatana Dharma row.

Sanatana Dharma row brings DMK’s strong rebuttal to court observations

The Sanatana Dharma row has been a sensitive issue in Tamil Nadu politics, drawing reactions from multiple political parties and national leaders. Following the High Court ruling, Union Minister Piyush Goyal shared a social media post describing the judgment as a strong criticism of what he called the DMK’s “narrow mindset.”

This statement drew a sharp response from the DMK, which rejected any suggestion that the party was against Hindu beliefs or practices. Annadurai said such claims were misleading and disconnected from the party’s political history and governance record.

He pointed out that the DMK-led government played a key role in ensuring a 69 per cent reservation policy in Tamil Nadu, which largely benefits communities belonging to Hindu society. According to him, it would be contradictory to label the party as anti-Hindu while ignoring such policies rooted in social justice and constitutional values.

The DMK spokesperson further argued that opposition to reservation could be interpreted as opposition to Hindu interests, given the social structure of the state. He maintained that the DMK’s ideology focuses on equality, rationalism, and constitutional principles rather than religious hostility.

Sanatana Dharma row highlights wider debate on law, politics, and speech

The Sanatana Dharma row has evolved beyond a single speech or legal case and now reflects a broader debate on freedom of expression, political accountability, and the role of the judiciary. The High Court, while quashing the FIR, questioned the selective application of law and raised concerns about consistency in handling hate speech complaints.

The DMK, however, believes that such observations should have been made after hearing all affected parties. Party leaders insist that legal interpretations must remain balanced and procedural fairness must be maintained, particularly when politically charged narratives are involved. Also Read: Consider SL man plea brings focus on decades-old citizenship struggle in 2026

Legal observers note that such cases often blur the line between political speech and legal boundaries, making judicial scrutiny crucial. At the same time, political reactions to court judgments underline the growing tension between institutions and elected governments.

Conclusion

The Sanatana Dharma row continues to shape political discourse in Tamil Nadu, with the DMK’s response adding another layer to the debate. As legal and political interpretations clash, the issue remains a focal point for discussions on constitutional values, judicial neutrality, and public speech.