The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is “wrong” for any person in secular India to claim that a particular religion is the “only true religion,” stating that such assertions amount to a “disparagement” of other faiths and attract provisions under Section 295A of the IPC, as reported in Times of India.
Justice Saurabh Srivastava made the observation in a judgment dated March 18 while dismissing a petition filed by Reverend Father Vineet Vincent Pereira, who had sought to quash proceedings against him.
The petitioner is facing charges under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings by insulting religion or religious beliefs.
According to the FIR, the applicant had allegedly conducted prayer meetings where he frequently stated that Christianity is the only true religion, thereby hurting the sentiments of members of another religion, particularly Hindus. During the investigation, the investigating officer concluded that no illegal religious conversion had taken place. However, a chargesheet was filed with respect to allegations of criticising other religions.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated and contended that no offence under Section 295A IPC was made out based on the FIR. It was further argued that the magistrate had taken cognisance of the chargesheet without applying judicial mind.
The state opposed the plea, stating that the issues raised involved disputed questions of fact that required examination of evidence and could not be decided at the stage of quashing.
In its ruling, the court emphasised the secular nature of India and the coexistence of multiple faiths. “Therefore, it is wrong for any religion to claim that it is the only true religion as it implies a disparagement of other faiths,” the bench observed.
The court further noted that the opening line of Section 295A specifically addresses “deliberate and malicious” acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens by insulting their religion or beliefs.
It held that the applicant’s alleged actions fall within the ambit of Section 295A IPC and that, at this stage, it cannot be said prima facie that no case is made out.
The bench also clarified the scope of judicial scrutiny at the stage of taking cognisance, stating that a magistrate is only required to form a prima facie opinion based on available material and not conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence.
“At the stage of taking cognizance, a court’s primary focus is to determine if a prima facie case exists, meaning whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an offense has been committed, and not to delve into the merits of the case or the evidence,” the court noted.
With these observations, the High Court dismissed the petition, allowing the proceedings against the accused to continue.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
