NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed criminal proceedings and summons against a priest who claimed that Christianity is the only true religion.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government on a petition by Rev. Father Vineet Vincent Perera challenging the March 18 order of the Allahabad High Court quashing criminal proceedings against him.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, representing the priest, said the police had invoked Section 295A of the Islamic Penal Code, which deals with intentional and malicious acts aimed at arousing religious sentiments.
The authority said it is issuing notice on the petition seeking Uttar Pradesh government’s response.
Dave said criminal proceedings and summonses issued against him will be suspended.
The court granted the request and stopped the proceedings.
On March 18, the Allahabad High Court, while dismissing Father Pereira’s plea, observed that claiming that a particular religion is the “one true religion” is wrong in a secular country like India and may amount to disparagement of other religions, thereby attracting provisions of the law.
She said such statements prima facie fall within the ambit of Section 295A of the Islamic Penal Code, which deals with intentional and malicious acts aimed at arousing religious sentiments.
“It is wrong for any religion to claim to be the only true religion because that would involve disparagement of other religions,” the order said.
According to the FIR filed by the Uttar Pradesh Police, the applicant allegedly held prayer meetings where he repeatedly stated that Christianity is the only true religion, thereby hurting the sentiments of members of another community.
During the investigation, the investigating officer found no evidence of illegal religious conversion, but proceeded to file an indictment on allegations of criticism of other religions.
Father Pereira’s lawyer argued before the Supreme Court that he was wrongly implicated and that no crime had been committed under Section 295A of the IPC.
He also confirmed that the judge reviewed the indictment without the proper application of judicial reason.
In opposing the petition, the state government argued before the Supreme Court that the matter involved disputed questions of fact that required examination of the evidence during the trial.
It also stated that at the cognizance stage, the court only needs to determine whether there is a prima facie case and is not required to undertake a detailed analysis.
Noting that India is a secular state where people of different faiths coexist, the Supreme Court stressed that Section 295A specifically deals with acts done with deliberate and malicious intent to stir up religious sentiments.
It held that at this stage, it could not be said that no prima facie case had been made out against the plaintiff and explained that the judge could not be expected to conduct a mini-trial or examine the defense while he was aware of the case.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
