Author: Dhananjay Mahapatra
Publication: The Times of India
Date: August 7, 2006
URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1863281.cms
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.