08-08-2006, 09:05 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Proselytisation FIR needs no sanction
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.
<b>This ruling assumes significance in the wake of serious opposition by
secular forces to efforts by some states to enact laws to prevent
proselytisation. </b>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).
<b>
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.</b>
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.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
<b>This ruling assumes significance in the wake of serious opposition by
secular forces to efforts by some states to enact laws to prevent
proselytisation. </b>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).
<b>
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.</b>
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.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->