Sanatana Dharma row | SC seeks response on Udayanidhi Stalin plea to club FIRs
The Hindu
The Supreme Court on May 10 issued notice to four States, a Union Territory and several individuals on a petition filed by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin to club FIRs registered against him over his remarks on ‘Sanatana Dharma’.
The Supreme Court on May 10 issued notice to four States, a Union Territory and several individuals on a petition filed by Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin to club FIRs registered against him over his remarks on ‘Sanatana Dharma’.
A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta sought responses from the States of Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Bihar and Jammu and Kashmir where cases were registered against the DMK leader.
Also Read | Udhayanidhi, A. Raja’s remarks reflect ‘deep-rooted Hinduphobia’ of INDIA bloc: Dharmendra Pradhan
Mr. Stalin was represented by senior advocates AM Singhvi, P. Wilson and Atul Chitle.
Mr. Stalin had argued that his petition was not about merits of the case, but focussed on the question of procedure. He said the registration of multiple FIRs was a violation of his right to 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 March 4 hearing.
Mr. Singhvi had referred to instances in the past, in the cases of TV anchors Arnab Goswami, Amish Devgan and Nupur Sharma, when the apex court had intervened and clubbed the FIRs in one place.
“Writing, in general, is a very solitary process,” says Yauvanika Chopra, Associate Director at The New India Foundation (NIF), which, earlier this year, announced the 12th edition of its NIF Book Fellowships for research and scholarship about Indian history after Independence. While authors, in general, are built for it, it can still get very lonely, says Chopra, pointing out that the fellowship’s community support is as valuable as the monetary benefits it offers. “There is a solid community of NIF fellows, trustees, language experts, jury members, all of whom are incredibly competent,” she says. “They really help make authors feel supported from manuscript to publication, so you never feel like you’re struggling through isolation.”
Several principals of government and private schools in Delhi on Tuesday said the Directorate of Education (DoE) circular from a day earlier, directing schools to conduct classes in ‘hybrid’ mode, had caused confusion regarding day-to-day operations as they did not know how many students would return to school from Wednesday and how would teachers instruct in two modes — online and in person — at once. The DoE circular on Monday had also stated that the option to “exercise online mode of education, wherever available, shall vest with the students and their guardians”. Several schoolteachers also expressed confusion regarding the DoE order. A government schoolteacher said he was unsure of how to cope with the resumption of physical classes, given that the order directing government offices to ensure that 50% of the employees work from home is still in place. On Monday, the Commission for Air Quality Management in the National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas (CAQM) had, on the orders of the Supreme Court, directed schools in Delhi-NCR to shift classes to the hybrid mode, following which the DoE had issued the circular. The court had urged the Centre’s pollution watchdog to consider restarting physical classes due to many students missing out on the mid-day meals and lacking the necessary means to attend classes online. The CAQM had, on November 20, asked schools in Delhi-NCR to shift to the online mode of teaching.