Supreme Court Directs MHA To Obtain Verification Reports From 8 States On Allegations Of Violence Against Christians

In a plea seeking directions to stop attacks against Christian priests and Christian institutions across the country, the Supreme Court, on Thursday, directed the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to obtain verification reports from 8 states, namely, Bihar, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh on the steps taken by their respective law enforcement agencies with respect to the violence alleged in the plea. The Apex Court was of the view that the collated reports would aid it in forming opinion on States' compliance with the directions issued in the judgment of Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India. A Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli stated that the Chief Secretaries of each of the 8 states named above are to provide information on the following aspects in their verification reports - Registration of FIRsStatus of investigationArrests madeChargesheets filed The petitioners have been directed to provide a detailed breakup of the incidents of violence indicated in the petition to the office of Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta within a period of 4 weeks. The Bench further directed that the exercise of verification to be carried out within 2 months thereafter and an affidavit be filed before the Court. However, it was made abundantly clear that by directing the State Governments and the Centre to undertake the above-mentioned exercise it has not expressed any opinion on the veracity of the allegations raised in the plea. Archbishop Of Bangalore Diocese Dr. Peter Machado along with the National Solidarity Forum, the Evangelical Fellowship of India are the petitioners herein. According to the petition, the present PIL has been filed against the "sinister phenomena of violence" and "targeted hate speech" against the Christian community of the country by vigilante groups and members of right-wing organisations. It submits that such violence has been rising owing to the failure of the State machinery to protect its own citizens. The petition argues that there is failure by the Central and State Governments and other State machineries in taking immediate and necessary actions against groups that have caused widespread violence and hate speech against the Christian community including attacks at their places of worship and other institutions run by them. On a previous occasion, the Apex Court had clarified that it will not get into the enquiry of individual cases. It noted that the judgment in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, wherein the Apex Court had issued a slew of directions regarding mob violence and lynching, already being in place, in the present proceedings the Court merely has to see if the framework is being followed by the State Government. As the Bench was inclined to issue notice, Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta sought permission to file a reply. He beseeched the Bench to consider his response before issuing notice in the matter. As per the preliminary objection has been filed by the Central Government through the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, it has opposed the plea saying that the petitioners have resorted to falsehood and have based their petition on some selective self-serving document and mere conjectures. The Centre's response states that the petitioners had relied on information gathered from press reports, "independent" online databases and from findings of various non-profit organisations. The Centre said that "enquiries reveal that the majority of the incidents alleged as Christian persecution in these reports were either false or wrongfully projected". It further submits that criminal cases arising out of personal issues have been given communal colour. The allegation that police have been negligent and biased has also been countered to be baseless. On the contrary, the Centre's response clarifies that the police has taken prompt action and conducted necessary investigation as per law. The response notes - "It is a recent trend that certain organisations start planting articles and preparing self- serving reports themselves or through their associates, which eventually become the basis of a writ petition / PIL. This is a hazardous trend and defeats the very object as to why PIL jurisdiction was originated by this Hon'ble Court." It is submitted that there appears to be an oblique motive behind the petitions; it is alleged that the agenda might be to create unrest throughout the country and perhaps to get assistance from foreign countries to meddle with India's internal affairs. The response reflects that the Centre thinks it fit that the affected parties approach the State law enforcement agencies or the respective High Courts with their grievances. What Transpired in Court Today Senior Advocate, Mr. Colin Gonsalves appearing on behalf of the ...

Supreme Court Directs MHA To Obtain Verification Reports From 8 States On Allegations Of Violence Against Christians

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags