Sanathana case. சனாதானம் வழக்கு COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT I, Udhayanidhi Stalin, s/o. M.K.Stalin, Indian

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No. 29205 OF 2023
T. Manohar
S/o. Thangavel,
No.147, R.K Nagar, Perumal Koil Street,
Periyaekkadu, Madhavaram Milk Colony,
Chennai- 600051

… Petitioner
Vs.
1. Mr. Udhayanidhi Stalin
S/o. M.K.Stalin,
Hon’ble Minister for
Youth Welfare & Sports Development,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai- 600 009

2. The Special Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai- 600 009
… Respondents
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
I, Udhayanidhi Stalin, s/o. M.K.Stalin, Indian, aged about 46 years, residing at 25/9, Chitranjan Salai, Alwarpet, Chennai 600018 do hereby solemnly and sincerely state as follows:
1. I submit that I am the 1st respondent in the above writ petition and as such I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case. I am competent to swear to this affidavit.
2. I submit that the aforesaid Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto against me from holding the office of Minster of the Government of Tamil Nadu and also as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu.
3. I submit at the outset that the aforesaid Writ Petition is misconceived , frivolous, politically motivated, for the sake of publicity and not maintainable in law or in fact and deserves to be dismissed in limine with exemplary costs. I categorically state that this counter affidavit is being filed only to highlight that the writ petition is not maintainable and that it must be dismissed at the threshold. The facts are dealt with only in that context.
4. I deny all the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition in toto as false, incorrect, baseless and untenable in law. The petitioner is put to strict proof of all his averments.
5. I deny all the documents filed in the typed set filed along with the writ petition, the additional affidavit dated 12.10.2023, memo dated 12.10.2023 and the pen drive and DVDs filed by the petitioner. The petitioner is put to strict proof of all his averments. These documents are also not admissible in these proceedings since:
(i) They are truncated and incomplete.
(ii) They have been modified/digitally edited by some person.
(iii) They are not accompanied with proper certificate u/s 65(B).
(iv) They have not been sufficiently identified and vouched for in the pleadings and
(v) They are disputed questions of fact.
6. It is well settled that in summary proceedings like writ proceedings, the Court will not enter into the thicket of evidence and test documents on disputed question of facts. Thus, reliance on these documents by the petitioner cannot be countenanced in law.
7. Further, the writ petition also suffers from the vice of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as the necessary parties for the relief sought in the writ petition have not been arrayed as party respondents. The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly can be sued only in the name of the Secretary to the Assembly and not in the name of the Special Secretary, who is a subordinate officer. Further, since the writ petition also makes a prayer about holding the office of the Minster of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the appropriate respondent who is the appointing authority for that post has not been arrayed and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for non-joinder on that score as well.
8. Without prejudice to my rights and contentions on the merits of the case, I state that the writ petition is not maintainable as it does not disclose any cause of action, triable or arguable points and is an abuse of the process of Court.
IDEOLOGICAL OPPONENTS USING JUDICIAL FORUM OUT OF FEAR OF FACING THE PEOPLE:
9. I state that admittedly the Petitioner claims to be an office bearer of the Hindu Munnani, an organisation set up by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in Tamil Nadu, serving as a platform for the RSS and its subsidiaries known as Sangh Parivar. The ruling political party at the Union, The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its leaders have organisational links and ideological backing of the RSS. In fact, the BJP is the political wing of the RSS. The invisible hand of the BJP to seed its political ideology in the soil of Tamilnadu through this Hon’ble Court can be seen in this Writ Petition. Thus, the instant Writ Petition is politically motivated.
10. I further submit that this writ petition is a classic case of abuse of process of the Court. A certain ideology which is opposed to the more than 100 years old Dravidian ideology is attempting to use the Court’s process to settle political and social questions. Where the Dravidian ideology speaks of self respect, equality, rational thought and brotherhood, the opposing sect speaks of division on the basis of caste. Ultimately, the petitioner’s organisation supports a political party – the BJP – that is facing the DMK in the political arena. This party has only suffered debilitating defeats in Tamil Nadu over the years. After facing consecutive losses in the people’s Court, the petitioner is attempting to use this Hon’ble Court as the battleground for what is essentially a political and social debate, not a legal question.
11. It is well settled that the Courts do not answer political, ideological or theological question. Therefore, the petitioner must come to the people with his view points, face me in the Court of the people and secure a victory if he is able to. The majority of the people in this great State of Tamil Nadu follow the Dravidian ideology and have voted me into office because I am a heir of that ideology. They expect me to adhere and propagate the Dravidian principles and ideology. I am one of the torch bearers of the Dravidian movement, and its principles which are also the core principles of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party to which I belong to. I am the Youth Wing Secretary of the DMK party. The message I preach is what has been preached by the architect of the Constitution Dr. Ambedkar and colossal Dravidian leaders like Thanthai Periyar, former Chief Minister Perarignar Anna, Muthamizh Arignar Kalaignar Dr. Karunanidhi and Hon’ble Chief Minister Thalaivar M.K. Stalin. The DMK party also has a cadre of more than two crores, who believe in this ideology. Thus, the petitioner seeks to impose his views on the majority of the people of this State.
12. I state that I have great respect for all religions and I have no intention to belittle or disrespect any faith. At the same time, it is my duty to speak about the irrational beliefs and discrimination prevalent in society in the name of religion.
13. I state that the right to be a rationalist and atheist is also traceable to Article 25. The Petitioner has misunderstood that Article 25 guarantees the right only to theists to practice and propagate theism. It also secures the right to atheists to practice and propagate atheism. In any case, the theological debate of theism v atheism cannot be had on this Hon’ble forum, it is not a question that a Court of law can adjudicate.
14. Ultimately, a writ of Quo Warranto can only be issued when the initial appointment is contrary to law or a person has attracted any of the disqualifications mentioned in the Constitution or the laws- Laws made by the Parliament and not the Book published by Board of Trustees, Central Hindu College Benares. In the present case, since that threshold has not been satisfied by the petitioner even on assuming but not admitting the averments in the affidavit to be true, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine without issuance of any rule nisi.

DISQUALIFICATION FROM HOLDING OFFICE OF MLA/ MINISTER:
15. I submit that that the Writ of Quo Warranto is an extraordinary prerogative writ issued by the High Court / Supreme Court of India in case a person holds constitutional or public office, without qualification or eligibility, or in cases where the very appointment is illegal or impermissible.
16. I submit that in the case of the eligibility criteria for membership of the State Legislature, the same is governed by Article 173 of the Constitution of India which prescribes the following eligibility:
a. Must be a citizen of India.
b. In case of Legislative Assembly must be above the age of 25.
c. Must possess such other qualifications prescribed by any other law made by Parliament.
17. I submit that the disqualification for a Member of the State Legislature is prescribed under Article 191 as follows:
(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State
(b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent Court;
(c) if he is an undischarged insolvent;
(d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State;
(e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament. Article 191(2) states that the Member shall be disqualified from being Member of the House if he is disqualified under the Tenth Schedule.
18. I submit that the law made by the Parliament under Article 191(e) is the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951. Under Section 5 of the said Act, the qualifications for membership of Legislative Assembly are prescribed as follows:
(A) In cases of seats reserved for SC/ST, he must be a member of those castes or tribes.
(B) Must be an elector for any Assembly constituency in that State.
19. I submit that the disqualification from membership of the House is provided under Chapter III, sections 8, 8-A, 9, 9A, 10, 10A & 11A. Section 7(b) defines “disqualified” as only under the grounds mentioned in chapter III and on no other grounds. It can be seen from the language of section 8 that the disqualification attracts only on conviction for offences specified therein. Section 8(1)(a) clearly states that a person who is convicted of an offence punishable under Sections 153(A), 171(E), 171(F), 376, 376(A-D), 498(A), 505 of Indian Penal Code shall be disqualified from holding the office of MLA.
20. I submit that apart from sections 8 and 8(A), further disqualification is provided u/s.9, 9(A), 10, 10(A) and 11(A). For these disqualifications alone, an elected Member of Legislative Assembly can be removed from office.
21. I submit that in the case of Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 653 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a Member of the Legislature upon attracting the disqualifications mentioned in Section 8 of the Act which includes conviction for the offences mentioned in Section 8(1)(a) or any other disqualification shall cease to hold Membership of the House unless the conviction is stayed by the Appellate Court.
22. I submit that similarly, the disqualification for being a Minister is set out in Article 164 (1B) [in case of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule] and Article 164 (4). Other than this, there are no other disqualifications for being a Minister of the Government of a State.
23. I submit that the allegations in the affidavit filed and support of the writ petition nowhere states that the 1st respondent has attracted any of the disqualifications mentioned either in the Constitution of India or under Section 8 of the Representation of People’s Act. The affidavit does not state that the 1st Respondent does not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed for being a MLA or Minister. In paragraph 10 of the Affidavit, the petitioner alleges that my alleged speech would attract criminal offences under 153(A), 505(2) and 295(A). Even if, for the sake of argument, an allegation is made and FIR is registered, an elected MLA does not cease to become a Member of the Legislature merely upon registration of a criminal case against him. In fact, in the case of Manoj Narula Vs. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1, a prayer was made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Members of Legislatures and Ministers of Governments who are facing criminal charges must automatically be held to be disqualified from holding such positions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, categorically rejected such contention and held that the disqualification as per the Lily Thomas case arises only upon conviction and not when facing investigation or trial. In Manoj Narula’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically refused to interfere and lay down the law that a person facing criminal charges would be automatically disqualified. The Court re-iterated that the disqualification attracts only upon conviction.
24. I submit that further, laying down such a law would have a disastrous consequence even upon the Union Cabinet. As per a recent report in the media, 33 out of 78 Ministers (42%) in the Union Cabinet have serious criminal cases pending against them. Out of the 33, 4 Ministers have cases relating to murder / attempt to commit murder charges which are far more serious than a personal view or opinion on a religious doctrine. These cases are also at various stages of trial. It would be disastrous if quo warranto is issued against these ministers.
25. I state that this Hon’ble Court can take judicial notice of the continuous, raging attacks on the minorities especially Muslims and Christians by the BJP. Inflammatory speeches of Hon’ble Union Ministers Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma MP spreading hate and violence in Delhi elections in 2020 against Muslims affecting harmony are widely publicised. The said issue is also a subject matter of a complaint initiated by Mrs Brinda Karet, CPM Leader and a SLP is pending before the Supreme Court in this regard. Speeches of BJP Leaders like Kapil Mishra, Nupur Sharma against Muslims and the prophet led to large scale riots and communal violence. They have all the blessings of BJP. Recently Hon’ble Prime Minister of India Mr. Modi and Mr. Amit Shah Hon’ble Union Home Minister have also made speeches which are not secular in nature. Will the Petitioner say a writ of quo warranto be maintainable against their speeches?
FREEDOM OF RELIGION & FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION:
26. I submit that no person can be disqualified from holding office as Minister merely because he or she holds a view on a particular issue. To say otherwise would rob the citizen of his freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The restrictions on Article 19(1)(a) can only be as under Article 19(2) and cannot include a book published by Hindu College, which is not law under Article 13.
27. I state that the Petitioner has not realized that the gamut of protection of Article 25 is not only for freedom of religion but also freedom of conscience. In other words, it is not only a freedom to believe in God but also a freedom not to believe in God. In that context, an atheist has the right to practice, profess and propagate his atheist principles the same way as theists do.
28. I further submit that the Petitioner is feigning ignorance on the well documented history of certain undesirable practices in the Hindu religion that were outlawed and after the advent of the Constitution became unconstitutional. Some examples are sati, widow remarriage, child marriage, untouchability, entry of all castes in temples etc. These practices were outlawed only by constitutional/ legislative intervention and social reforms, engineered by law makers and political leaders. In fact, Article 25 (2) which begins with a non-obstante clause provides for the State to make measures for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. This itself shows that Article 25(1) is subject to social reform and making accessible Hindu religion to all castes. Therefore, it is the constitutional duty of all, not just leaders, politicians and social reformists to talk about and sensitise the masses on the evils of irrational beliefs, including caste hierarchy. This is in exercise of the constitutional freedoms under Article 19(1)(a), 25(1) and 25(2)(b). In fact, it is widely reported that on December 25, 1927 Dr. Ambedkar burned Manusmrithi during the Mahad Satyagraha while fighting for the rights of the lower castes to gain access to public water. While addressing the crowd before burning the book he said, “Let’s destroy the authority of ancient Hindu scriptures that are borne in inequality. Religion and slavery are not compatible.” This is the speech of Dr. Ambedkar himself, the architect of India’s Constitution.
29. I state that some of the laws which have superceded age old traditions, customs and beliefs which formed part of Sanatana but were irrational are:
 The Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act, 1947
 The Tamil Nadu Devadasis (Prevention of Dedication) Act, 1947
 The Hindu Marriage (Tamil Nadu) (Amendment) Act, 1967 (which brought in self respect marriages to promote inter caste marriages)
 The Tamilnadu Hindu Succession (Amendment ) Act 1989(TN Act 1 of 1990) introducing Chapter II A in Hindu Succession Act consisting of sections 29A to 29 C giving equal rights to woman.
30. I state that the Petitioner has hinged his entire case on a 1902 edition book published by Hindu College, Benares. Firstly, the said document is not admissible since it is truncated. Secondly, the said document, being a piece of literature does not have the force of law under Article 13(3)(a) and hence is not a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Art 19(2). There are no pleadings to substantiate that this book has acquired the status of custom or usage or received the approval of a majority of the Hindu sects. Thus, violation of the concept of Sanatana preached under this “book” cannot be elevated to the status of violation of constitutional provisions.
31. I state that the said 1902 book admits that the basis of Sanatana is the Smriti and the four Vedas. Chapter VII of the book deals with castes, where it re-iterates age old caste hegemonical beliefs like the “Shudras” are born from the feet; the duty of the Shudras is to serve the other castes etc. I state that since the book filed by the Petitioner states that the basis of Sanatana includes the Manu Smriti, I want to highlight a few extracts from the Manu Smriti, from an English transalation of the Manu Smriti, about the position of women and lowed caste persons contained therein:
Manusmiriti on women:
Chapter 5, shlokas 148, 149: “Even in her own home, a female – whether she is a child, a young woman or an old lady – should never carry out any task independently. As a child, she must remain under her father’s control, as a young woman, under her husband’s; and when her husband is dead, under her sons.”
Shloka 154: “Though he may be bereft of virtue, given to lust, and totally devoid of good qualities, a good woman should always worship her husband like a god.”
Shloka 168: While women must remain faithful to their husbands, alive and dead, a widower is advised that, “After he has given his sacred fires to his predeceased wife at her funeral, he should marry a wife again and establish anew his sacred fires.”
Manusmiriti on lower castes:
Chapter 8, shlokas 21, 22 say: “When a Sudra interprets the Law for a king, his realm sinks like a cow in mud… the entire realm, stricken with famine and pestilence, quickly perishes when it is teeming with Sudras, overrun by infidels and devoid of twice-born people.”
Chapter 8, shloka 410, says, “A king should make Sudras engage in the service of twice-born people”, and shlokas 413, 414, say “the Sudra was created by the self-created one solely to do slave labour for the Brahmin. Even when he is released by his master, a Sudra is not freed from his slave status for that is innate in him; and who can remove it from him?”
Chapter 8, shloka 129: “Even a capable Sudra must not accumulate wealth; for when a Sudra becomes wealthy, he harasses Brahmins.”
Chapter 10, shloka 92: “By selling meat, lac, or salt, a Brahmin falls immediately from his caste; by selling milk, he becomes a Sudra in three days.”

Manusmirti on Brahminical superiority:
Chapter 11, shloka 307, says: “By wanting to hurt a Brahmin, a man goes to hell – if he threatens him, for one hundred years, if he strikes him, for one thousand years.”
The killing of members of other castes, however, are to be punished in different ways.
Chapter 11, shloka 127: “One-quarter the penance for the murder of a Brahmin is prescribed by tradition for the murder of a Kshatriya; one-eighth for the murder of a virtuous Vaisya; and one-sixteenth for the murder of a Sudra.”
Chapter 8, shloka 267, 268: “For assailing a Brahmin, a Kshatriya ought to be fined 100, and a Vaisya 150 or 200 but a Sudra ought to suffer corporal punishment. A Brahmin should be fined 50 for abusing a Kshatriya, 25 for abusing a Vaisya and 12 for abusing a Sudra.”
Chapter 11, Penances, in shloka 162: “Even if he has slaughtered these three worlds and even if he has eaten food of anyone at all, no sin taints a Brahmin who retains the Rig Veda in his memory…”

Thus, these notions of caste superiority which formed the basis of religious beliefs were outlawed and thrown out of society only by social reforms envisaged under Art 25.
32. At this juncture it is crucial to point out that Tamil Nadu is the land where the bugle of social justice sounded the loudest in the 20th century. The iconic Thanthai Periyar, Perarignar Anna, Muthamizh Arignar Dr. Kalaignar M. Karunanidhi and now Thalaivar M.K. Stalin were all at the forefront of the social justice revolution that fought the ugly caste hegemony at every turn. Even at the national level, Dr. Ambedkar, fought to eradicate social evils in society.
33. It is also apposite to recollect that the traditional Hindu belief did not offer an equal place for women at her home or society. Women were not given equal access to education or employment and were not party of mainstream society. It is the Dravidian ideology that contemplates equal rights and opportunities to women. No other State has as many schemes for women empowerment as Tamil Nadu.
34. Similarly, it is this State and the Dravidian ideology which preaches self respect that gave the third gender their equal rights and place in society. This too was traditionally denied on the basis of religious beliefs.
35. I state that as early as 1924, Thanthai Periyar spearheaded the Vaikom Satyagraha which led to the Travancore Temple Entry Proclamation of 1936 and throwing open of public streets to all Hindus. In 1939, The Madras Temple Entry Authorisation and Indemnity Act 1939 was legislated. This Act was upheld by this Hon’ble Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1945 Madras 211. In 1947 the The Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act 1947 Act was enacted which authorised all castes of Hindus to enter into the Hindu temples in the State of Tamil Nadu based upon the policy of the State Government to remove the disabilities imposed on certain classes of Hindus against entry into Hindu Temples in the State.
36. I humbly submit that the petitioner by relying upon book of 1902, wants to take the society back to the dark ages, where men and women were not treated equal, where a person born to a “lower caste” was shunned, ostracised and treated as second class citizen.
37. I state that that in the clarification issued by me on 07.09.2023, I have categorically stated that I am only against facets of religious practices that discriminate between people. This has been suppressed by the Petitioner for political reasons and hence the writ Petition is motivated only for publicity and keep the issue alive for BJP for elections.
38. I submit that the Petitioner makes a further allegation that I have breached the fundamental duties set out under Articles 51(A)- (c) (e) and (f)of the Constitution of India. In this regard, it is well settled that fundamental duties are not justiciable and not enforceable before Hon’ble Courts.
39. I humbly submit that the petitioner has alleged that the alleged speech offends Article 51-A(e) of the Constitution of India. In this regard it is submitted that Article 51-A(e) speaks about the promotion of harmony and spirit of common brotherhood and to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women. Even going by the statements made in the affidavit as alleged by the petitioner, to argue in favour of the equality, abolition of caste discrimination, upliftment of backward classes, empowerment of women and equal treatment of women is only in furtherance of Article 51-A(e) and not in derogation thereof.
40. I state that assuming but not admitting that a viewpoint held by me offends the viewpoint of the Petitioner, the same cannot be a violation of Article 25. Article 25 is only a guarantee against the State. An alleged speech at a political conference cannot be said to be State action. These contradicting viewpoints are to be taken to the people’s forum, not a judicial forum. The people will decide whose view point resonates with them and elect representatives who match their aspirations.
41. Furthermore, unlike Article 61 where a President can be impeached for violation of any provision of the Constitution, Article 191 does not contain such language. Article 191 is a watertight compartment that prescribes five disqualifications for being a MLA and nothing more can be added into Article 191.
ALLEGED BREACH OF OATH:
42. I state at the outset that I have not breached the oath of office taken by me as MLA or Minister. I state that dehors this factual assertion, breach of oath cannot be adjudicated through writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I state that there exists a separation of powers under Article 50 of the Constitution of India between the executive and the judiciary. In case any oath is breached, it is for the Chief Minister of the State to advise the Governor to withdraw pleasure. No writ can be issued from this Hon’ble Court for this purpose.
43. I further state that if holding a view point on caste hegemony and preaching for equality of all castes and eradication of discrimination is not a breach of oath.
ADMISSIBILITY OF PENDRIVE & DVD & EVIDENTIARY VALUE:
44. I submit that further, the petitioner alleges a speech has been made by me. Though, initially the alleged speech was not made part of the writ petition, subsequently, a pen drive has been served upon my counsel containing 3 videos allegedly containing my speech and I deny the same.
45. I submit that the said pen drive has not been authenticated in a manner prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1. In the said case, the Supreme Court has clearly enunciated that in order to rely upon electronic evidence in Court, it is mandatory to produce a certificate u/s 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The said certificate should contain specific averments as to who was the person who caused to be produced the electronic output, in which system it was made, and that the person had complete control over the electronic evidence that was in possession at that point.
46. I submit that even apart from the strict rules of evidence prescribed u/s 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, the petitioner has not pleaded by way of an affidavit as to who recorded the said speeches, how it came into his possession and has not authenticated or vouched for the genuineness of said speeches. That apart, the speech itself is truncated and not the entire speech and thus cannot be relied upon in these proceedings. Further, evidence of this nature is a disputed question of fact and cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings such as writ proceedings but only can be subject matter of trial.
47. I state that the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit dated 12.10.2023 and a common memo dated 12.10.2023 purportedly as a certificated u/s 65(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
48. I state that the aforesaid affidavit and memo does not meet the requirements u/s. 65(B) since it does not contain the following mandatory requirements:
(1) The person who produced the computer output.
(2) The description of the computer device like device model, year of manufacture, etc.
(3) That the device was in control of the person issuing the certificate and the device was in good working order.
(4) that the output matches the electronic evidence available on the computer.
In the absence of the certificate conforming to the aforesaid requirements, it cannot be a certificate u/s 65(B) and consequently this Hon’ble Court cannot rely upon such electronic evidence.
49. I humbly submit that in light of the above, the writ petition having miserably failed to set out under what provision of the Constitution or the laws I have acquired a disqualification, is bereft of material facts and particulars, does not disclose a cause of action, and consequently must fail at the threshold itself.
WRIT PETITIONS AGAINST HIGH CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES WITHOUT ARGUABLE POINTS MUST BE DISMSSED AT THE THRESHOLD:
50. It is submitted that in the case of Union of India and Another. vs. S.P. Anand and others, (1998) 6 SCC 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where a writ petition is filed without any triable or arguable issue, it has to be dismissed in limine. Particularly, where high constitutional authorities are arrayed as respondents, the Court must not order notice to them. In a case where a writ petition does not disclose any triable or arguable issues, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that not even a notice must be issued by the High Court and after a preliminary hearing, the High Court must dismiss the Writ Petition at the threshold. The Court has also cautioned against the forum being used for publicity by persons moving the writ petition.
51. In light of the above, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above writ petition in W.P.No.29205 of 2023 in limine as not maintainable with exemplary costs and pass such other further orders.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on this DEPONENT
the 14th day of October, 2023 and signed
his name in my presence
BEFORE ME

ADVOCATE – CHENNAI