The Supreme Court recently scrutinized a plea filed by Chief Minister MK Stalin to consolidate multiple criminal complaints lodged against him for his controversial statement regarding the eradication of Sanatana Dharma. While seeking the court’s intervention to club these complaints, Stalin cited previous judgments involving journalists Arnab Goswami and Mohammed Zubair. However, the bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, expressed skepticism, asserting that Stalin could not equate himself with journalists or media outlets.
The Court noted that Stalin had made the statements voluntarily, unlike journalists who may act under the influence of their employers to boost TRPs. The bench emphasized that Stalin’s case was distinct from those of media professionals and questioned his decision to file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, which deals with remedies for the enforcement of fundamental rights, instead of invoking Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which grants the Supreme Court the power to transfer cases and appeals.
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, P Wilson, and Chitale represented Stalin and sought time to compile additional FIRs and summonses filed in Rajasthan, as well as to submit a note on the Supreme Court’s authority to club and transfer FIRs. Singhvi referenced the transfer of actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s case to the CBI and highlighted the case of BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, whose FIRs from different states were eventually transferred to one state.
In response, the Court directed Stalin to amend his plea to align with Section 406 of the CrPC and scheduled the next hearing for the week commencing on May 6.