The Allahabad High Court recently held that it is wrong for any person to claim that theirs is the only true religion, as it amounts to disparagement of other faiths.
Justice Saurabh Srivastava made the observation while dealing with a quashing plea filed by a Christian priest facing charges of outraging the religious feelings of Hindus.
The Court declined to quash the proceedings against the accused, observing that India is a secular country where a particular religion cannot claim to be "only true religion".
"By bare perusal of the narrations made in the FIR wherein it has been mentioned that in his prayer meet, applicant frequently states that there is only one religion which is Christian and also hurts the sentiments of a particular religion i.e. Hindu, whereas India is a land where people of all faiths and beliefs in secular state as defined by Constitution of India, live together, 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 Court said.
It noted that Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) prohibits deliberate and malicious outraging of religious feelings of any class of citizens. Thus, the Court ruled that actions of the accused in the present case come under the ambit of Section 295-A IPC.
The accused had challenged the chargesheet against him as well as the trial court order taking cognizance of the offence against him. His counsel argued that he has been falsely implicated only to harass him.
It was also argued that during the investigation, it was concluded by the investigating officer that no illegal conversion of religion has ever been done by the accused.
However, the prosecution argued that disputed questions of fact are involved in the case, which can only be decided during a trial.
The High Court agreed with the State's contention, observing that at the stage of taking cognizance, a court's primary focus is only to determine if a prima facie case exists, and not to delve into the merits of the case or the evidence.
Advocate Gaurav Tripathi represented the petitioner.
[Read Order]