Sanatana Dharma: SC seeks response from States, U.T. on Udhayanidhi’s plea to club FIRs
Quashing the order of the Inspector-General of Registrations stating that the MVG of 2012 had been restored, the court had pointed to non-compliance with Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Rules, 2010, and wondered how the Valuation Committee had arrived at the value without adequate inputs from the Valuation SubCommittees on the prevailing market rates.
The court directed the State to follow the MVG xed with e¦ect from June 9, 2017, till the Valuation Committee revises the same by following due process. It ruled that the documents already registered during the period from the date of the circular (March 30, 2023) and the date of the judgment stood excluded. Consequently, no one was entitled to claim a refund of the stamp duty already paid for registering documents based on the circular.
When asked whether the MVG was revised and restored to the 2017 value after the court order, the ocial said that no changes were made in the software, and the status quo was being maintained.
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to four States, a Union Territory and several individuals on a petition led by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin to club the FIRs registered against him over his remarks on Sanatana Dharma.
A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta sought responses from Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Bihar, and Jammu and Kashmir, where cases had been registered against the DMK leader.
Mr. Udhayanidhi was represented by senior advocates A.M. Singhvi, P. Wilson and Atul Chitle.
He had argued that his petition was not about the merits of the case, but focused on the question of procedure. He said that the registration of multiple FIRs was a violation of his right to a fair trial, and amounted to “persecution before prosecution”.
“You abuse Article 19(1) (a) [free speech], you abuse Article 25 [freedom of conscience]. Now, you are coming here under Article 32 [writ protection of fundamental rights]...You are not a layman. You are a Minister. You should have realised the consequences,” Justice Datta had observed during a hearing on March 4.
Mr. Singhvi had referred to past cases involving television anchors Arnab Goswami, Amish Devgan and Nupur Sharma,
in which the top court had intervened and clubbed the FIRs in one place.
“I may lose or win the case on merits. But this is persecution, making me run around. The FIRs are based on the same statement,” Mr. Singhvi had submitted.
Question of jurisdiction The petition led by Mr. Udhayanidhi had said that it was well-settled in criminal law that only a criminal court, within whose territorial jurisdiction the alleged o¦ence took place, would proceed with the case.
Mr. Udhayanidhi had made the speech at Kamarajar Auditorium in Chennai. The jurisdiction would be vested in a court in Chennai.
He had voiced apprehension that inquiries in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra would “certainly have political overtones” and a¦ect his right to a fair trial.