Proselytisatgion - Supreme court ruling

Proselytisation FIR needs no sanction

http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?id=1154971541&type=NEWS


Dhananjay Mahapatra
7 Aug, 2006
Times of India

NEW DELHI: This Supreme Court order is bound to have a ripple effect on religious leaders who in one way or the other induce people to convert.

Despite the bar on courts to take cognizance of an offence relating to proselytisation without the prosecution obtaining prior sanction either from the Central government, state government or the district magistrate, the police can lodge FIRs and arrest those indulging in such activity, the court has ruled.

This ruling assumes significance in the wake of serious opposition by secular forces to efforts by some states to enact laws to prevent proselytisation. They had felt that these laws were meant to persecute those arranging legitimate conversions.

Their views, till date, appeared well entrenched in the Criminal Procedure Code which protected religious leaders from harassment at the hands of police for their efforts to get more followers to their faith.

Section 191(1-A) of CrPC says that 'no court shall take cognizance" of an offence involving inducement for conversion unless the prosecution has obtained previous sanction of the "Central government or of the state government or of the district magistrate".

The Supreme Court on Friday drew an important line between courts taking cognizance of the offence pertaining to proselytisation and police lodging FIRs and arresting the erring religious figures indulging in the offence.

A Bench comprising Justices G P Mathur and Dalveer Bhandari said police do not require prior sanction of anybody in lodging an FIR or arresting a religious leader, if there is a complaint of proselytisation against him.

On the receiving end of this ruling was a Karnataka pastor P Raju. The apex court set aside an order of the High Court, which had quashed a case of proselytisation lodged against him under Section 153-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The complaint accused Raju of appealing to a Sankranthi congregation on January 14, 2005, at Ramapura asking the people to convert to Christianity and promising many benefits and facilities not available to them in the Hindu religion. The Karnataka government had appealed against the HC order quashing the case against him.

The court explained that absence of prior sanction, a mandatory pre-requisite for a court to take cognizance of such offence, would not prevent a magistrate from remanding to police or judicial custody of an accused arrested by the police for the offence of proselytisation.

There is no bar against registration of a criminal case or investigation by the police agency or submission of a chargesheet against the accused in such cases, Justice Mathur, writing for the Bench, said.

Mere production of the arrested accused before the magistrate and the latter remanding him to custodial detention does not amount to taking cognizance of the offence, for which alone prior sanction is required, the Bench said.

The HC clearly erred in quashing the proceedings against the pastor on the ground that prior sanction of the Central government or of the state government or of the district magistrate had not been obtained, it said.