In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that it is wrong for any religion to claim it is the “only true religion,” as such assertions imply a disparagement of other faiths. The court said this while dismissing a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Reverend Father Vineet Vincent Pereira.
Section 295A IPC punishes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
Reverend Father Pereira, who conducts Christian prayer meetings, faced allegations that he repeatedly stated during these gatherings that Christianity is the only true religion. A complaint was lodged, leading to an FIR under Section 295A IPC for allegedly hurting the religious sentiments of Hindus. Although the investigating officer found no evidence of illegal religious conversions among marginalised sections, police filed a chargesheet on the counts of criticising other religions. The magistrate took cognizance of the matter.
Challenging the proceedings, Pereira filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, before the High Court, seeking to quash the case.
Dismissing the plea, Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed that India is a secular state where people of all faiths and beliefs coexist, as enshrined in the Constitution. The court stated: “It is wrong for any religion to claim that it is the only true religion as it implies a disparagement of other faiths.”
The judge emphasised that the opening words of Section 295A specifically address “deliberate and malicious” intentions to outrage religious feelings. Prima facie, the petitioner’s statements appeared to fall within the ambit of the provision, the court held. It noted that the petition involved disputed questions of fact, which could not be resolved in quashing proceedings. At the stage of taking cognizance, the trial court is only required to assess whether a prima facie case exists and is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or examine the defence.
The High Court accordingly found the quashing petition devoid of merit and dismissed it.
The matter will now proceed to trial, where the accused can present his defence and the prosecution must prove the elements of the offence, including malicious intent.
