Justice Anita Sumanth of the Madras High Court on Wednesday disposed of three writ of quo warranto petitions filed against Tamil Nadu Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development Udhayanidhi Stalin, Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments P.K. Sekarbabu and the Nilgiris Member of Parliament A. Raja with regard to the Sanatana Dharma row. While passing a judgment running to 107 pages, the judge dealt with elaborately on the subject.
The judge said the term ‘Sanatana’ meant eternal, timeless and perpetual. It was an adjective and would hence normally, qualify a noun or a pronoun. In the present instance, the word ‘Sanatana’ qualified the noun ‘Dharma,’ which meant principles/or a value system. The phrase ‘Sanatana Dharma’ thus meant an eternal or perpetual, value system or code of conduct, the judge added.
Simultaneous with the creation of life on earth, ‘Rta,’ meaning truth or order in Sanskrit, leading to the doctrines of dharma (duty) and karma (accumulated effects of good and bad actions) pervaded the universe and all life forms. ‘Rta’ was the physical order of the universe and the moral law of the world. ‘Rta’ was a central concept in early vedic philosophy, ‘Satya’ (truth) was in the mid- vedic periods and ‘Dharma’ in post-vedic period. Rta, Satya and Dharma were fundamental and responsible for the proper functioning of natural, moral, religious and sacrificial orders.
Dharma was universal in application, irrespective of the faith of an individual. Universal values such as honesty, integrity, respect for elders and compassion, to name a few, elevated the quality of society in general and were virtues that were timeless in application. The core principles of Dharma were those that did not admit of divergence of opinion and thus impressed all form of living beings without division, she said.
Observing that the derision felt by the two Ministers and the MP towards Sanskrit was quite palpable, the judge said, the clear impression conveyed by them was that Sanskrit was elitist, exclusionist and irrelevant in the present day context since it was on the brink of extinction.
“However, as the principles of Sanatana Dharma are contained in the Vedic texts that are in Sanskrit, the effort to understand, at least peripherally, the primary texts with the assistance of authentic commentaries by Skandaswamy, Sayanar, Bhattabhaskar or other respected commentators should have been undertaken if one is to have a proper understanding of the principles. Translations and unauthenticated commentaries will just not do,” she wrote.
The judge said the submissions put forth by the three lawmakers in their defence made it clear that they had not taken any effort to refer to authentic literature on Sanatana Dharma. “Instead popular notions such as the Aryan invasion theory and others are being mechanically articulated without any real, in-depth study to back them. As regards the term ‘Aryan’, that term only denotes a qualification and means ‘noble’. It can thus be used to refer to any individual holding that qualification,” she added.
While agreeing that the Rig Veda provided for a division of castes, she said, even such classification was based only on avocation and not on the birth of a person. She said the three lawmakers had not undertaken any study worth its name to arrive at a conclusion that Sanatana Dharma meant only Varna Dharma (caste based division) but for relying upon a publication of Central Banaras University and a book titled The Law Code of Manu.
“At the court’s request, a sample study of the original vedic texts was undertaken by senior professors in the Kuppuswami Sastri Research Institute, Madras (Chennai), that confirm, prima facie, the position that the phrase Sanatana Dharma has always been used in the context of high moral values and virtuous living. My thanks to them for this timely assistance. There is absolutely no material to lead to the conclusion that that phrase was used in the context of the Varna system or to propagate unfair and inequitable divisions of society in any manner,” the judge concluded.
While examining whether Sanatana Dharma was different and distinct from Hinduism, the judge quoted Swami Vivekananda from his seminal paper presented at the World Parliament of Religions on September 19, 1983 to have stated that only “three religions now stand in the world which have come down to us from time pre-historic – Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Judaism. They had all received tremendous shocks and all of them proved by their survival their internal strength.”
Though Sanatana Dharma was understood as the universal and perpetual code of virtuous conduct propagated from times immemorial, the term ‘Hindu’ was a development far later in time. Former President Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan in his book Hindu View of Life, had stated that the term Hindu originally had territorial significance, implying residence in a well defined geographical area.
“Those who lived on the banks of the river Sindhu were practitioners of Sanatana Dharma. The word ‘Sindhu’ came to be modified over the years by foreign invaders to ‘Hindu’ and in time, became associated with the people living in that area. As the Hindus/practitioner of Sanatana Dharma expanded their area of residence, they carried with them the tenets of Sanatana Dharma as well. Sanatana Dharma thus forms the very core of Hinduism and the two Sanatana Dharma and Hinduism are immutable, one and the same,” the judge held.
She went on to state: “This is not to say that those who lived elsewhere were bereft of a virtuous code of conduct. As discussed, Tamil literature too has enough and more reference to ‘Aram’ (righteousness) celebrated and practised diligently by the people. The principles of Sanatana Dharma and ‘Aram’ are thus premised on similar value systems of high thinking and a virtuous way of life.”
Justice Sumanth categorically ruled that by seeking to eradicate Sanatana Dharma, the Ministers and MP had, in effect, undertaken to eradicate much that was virtuous in society.
“This assumes importance, since they are utterances by persons holding Constitutional posts and the apprehension is that the full power of the State machinery would be utilised for this purpose… This is indeed an alarming situation. While there may be ideological differences between persons holding power, the differences are expected to be based on a thorough understanding of the system being critiqued and importantly, to be constructive and not destructive of any faith. Statements made in public by sitting Ministers and MPs must be factually and historically accurate,” she said.
The judge held that the three had undoubtedly acted contrary to the constitutional principles and ideals and their statements amounted to disinformation and hate against members of a specific community. She also said the statements made by them against Sanatana Dharma violated the promise of secular values under the Constitution.
However, while dealing with the scope of issuing writs of quo warranto for displacing the three from their constitutional positions, the judge said, there were a catena of decisions that violation of oath by itself would not attract disqualification since it was not within the enumerated grounds of disqualification provided under the Constitution.
“In the present case, my conclusions… are unambiguous that the offending statements spew hate against a particular community, the Hindus and constitutes dis/misinformation. However, these conclusions cannot be stretched so as to justify a writ of quo warranto as I would then be reading into the Constitution and the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the disqualification of hate speech and perpetration of mis/disinformation. The line of judgments cited by the individual respondents (the three legislators) have held this to be impermissible.”
The judge elaborated that the instances under which a legislator could be disqualified were set out under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and those instances were specific and finite. She agreed that there was no scope for expanding them.
Section 8 of the Act provided for disqualification on account of conviction for certain offences and one of them was the offence of promoting enmity between different groups of people on the ground of religion.
“The allegations of the writ petitioners (three individuals belonging to a Hindu outfit) as against the individual respondents is exactly on point. While FIRs are stated to be pending in various States with regard to the offending statements, admittedly, there has been no conviction as on date. Thus, the relief of quo warranto as sought for by the petitioners is premature as no cause of action arises at this juncture of time for such issuance. The relief sought, thus, cannot be granted,” the judge concluded.
Though the writ petitioners had urged the court to mould the relief if it was not persuaded to issue writs of quo warranto, the judge refrained from doing so and said: “It has been reiterated time and again that the quality of the people’s representatives is in the hands of the people alone, and it is the vox populi that will ultimately prevail.”
Also taking note that a request for disqualification had been made to the Governor too, Justice Sumanth said, it was all the more a reason for the court to respect the doctrine of separation of powers and leave it to the authority under the Constitution to decide the plea for disqualificaiton having regard to all appropriate parameters.
