The Madras High Court on Friday said that Sanatana Dharma is a set of eternal duties and that it cannot be traced to one specific literature, but has to be gathered from multiple sources.
“It has also broadly understood Sanatana Dharma as a set of ‘eternal duties’, and that it cannot be traced to one specific literature, but has to be gathered from multiple sources which, either relate to Hinduism, or which those who practice the Hindu way of life, have come to accept. It includes the duty to the nation, duty to the King, King’s duty to his people, duty to one’s parents and Gurus, care for the poor, and whole lot of other duties,” the court said.
“If the topic chosen by the impugned circular is now tested on the plane of these duties, it would then mean that all these duties are liable to be destroyed. Should not a citizen love his country? Is he not under a duty to serve his nation? Should not the parents be cared for? With genuine concern for what is going round, this Court could not help pondering over it,” the court added.
The High Court was hearing a challenge against a Circular issued by the Principal of Thiru Vi. Ka. Government Arts College requesting the girl students in the college to share their views on the topic “Opposition to Sanadhana (Sanatana)” on the occasion of commemorating the birth anniversary of former Tamil Nadu CM Annadurai.
“Somewhere, an idea appears to have gained ground that Sanadhana Dharma is all about, and only about, promoting casteism and untouchability. Untouchability in a country of equal citizens, cannot be tolerated, and even if it is seen as permitted somewhere within the principles of ‘Sanathana dharma’, it still cannot have a space to stay, since Article 17 of the Constitution has declared that untouchability has been abolished…. Therefore, untouchability, either within or outside Sanatana Dharma can no longer be Constitutional though sadly it still exists,” the court further said.
“Every religion is founded on faith, and faith by nature accommodates irrationality. Therefore, when free speech is exercised in matters pertaining to religion, it is necessary for one to ensure that no one is injured. In other words free speech cannot be hate speech, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned. The users of free speech must not ignore to factor these aspects while exercising their right. If this is ignored, the course of any debate will get derailed, and the objective behind it will lose significance,” the court said.
Since the circular in the present case was already withdrawn, the court encouraged the College to instead make the students reflect on the evils of untouchability and how as citizens of the society, they could eliminate untouchability.
