DMK termed the Madras High Court judgment on the ‘Sanatana Dharma’ row as “wrong” and accused it of reflecting the judge’s personal beliefs.
The party said the ruling violated basic principles of jurisprudence, including the right to be heard (audi alteram partem).
DMK rejected allegations of being anti-Hindu, citing its role in ensuring 69% reservation and adherence to constitutional values.
Sanatana Dharma row: HC judgment 'wrong,' no place for judge's personal belief in ruling, says DMK
The DMK on Thursday criticised a Madras High Court judgment linked to the ‘Sanatana Dharma’ controversy, calling it “wrong” and alleging that the judge’s personal beliefs influenced the ruling, which it said had no place in judicial decisions
Summary
The ruling DMK on Thursday described a Madras High Court judgement on the 'Sanatana Dharma' row involving its leader Udhayanidhi Stalin as "wrong", and said the personal belief of the judge has no place in the judgment.
Responding to the Madurai Bench of the HC quashing an FIR against BJP IT cell chief Amit Malviya, DMK spokesperson Saravanan Annadurai said the "judgment is wrong".
"It does not adhere to a cardinal principle in jurisprudence. Audi Alteram Partem (which means) nobody should be condemned unheard."
"The personal belief or ideology of the judge should not find a place in the judgment," he said, responding to Union Minister Piyush Goyal's social media post calling the HC ruling "a strong rebuke to the DMK's narrow, anti‑Hindu mindset."
Annadurai denied that DMK was anti-Hindu.
"The most erroneous part is that DK and DMK had acted against Hinduism in the last 100 years. There is nothing that is far from the truth in this assertion of the judgment. DMK is the party which ensured 69 per cent reservation for the Hindus. How can this be against Hinduism. This can be viewed as against Hinduism only if you oppose reservation. And you cannot oppose reservation, as it's guaranteed by the Constitution," he added.
The HC had quashed the FIR registered against BJP leader Malviya for allegedly distorting the comments made by Deputy Chief Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin on "Sanatana Dharma", wondering why those initiating "hate speech" were allowed to go scot-free while those reacting to it had to face the law.
Published At:
Tags