'Reckless Statements Demeaning Another Religious Faith Will Only Sow Seeds Of Hatred' : Madras High Court Warns Evangelist While Quashing FIR

While quashing FIRs registered against Christian evangelist Mohan C Lazarus for hurting religious sentiments, the Madras High Court made certain significant observations regarding the need to maintain respect and tolerance for other religious faiths in a pluralistic society.

A single bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh quashed the FIRs against Lazarus, the founder of 'Jesus Redeems Ministry', following his unconditional apology, but only after strongly rebuking his conduct and emphasizing the need to maintain restraint while exercising the right to propagate religion.

"Spewing venom against another religious faith and developing hatred among the followers of a particular religion against another, defies the very purpose of religion, which is meant to help a human being evolve towards higher truths", Justice Anand Venkatesh observed in the judgment.

"The Petitioner, who is an evangelist claims to have followers across the world. If this statement is taken to be true, there are millions of persons who look up to the Petitioner,completely believing and blindly following whatever the Petitioner propagates. If the Petitioner is going to make reckless statements which has the propensity of demeaning another religious faith, it will only sow seeds of hatred among people across religious faiths. Every word uttered by any person holding an influential status in their respective religions has the potential to make or mar the inner development of a person. Therefore, such persons are required to exercise a great amount of responsibility while uttering each word", the judgment said.

Spirituality not a competitive business

The Court observed that the petitioner was not supposed to involve in a "competitive business" showing his religion in superior light over others.

"Spirituality is not a medium through which each religion competes with each other to show its superiority over the other", the Court observed.

The judgment also quoted from the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus Christ and said :

"The words of Jesus Christ clearly goes on to reveal that the religion or its ideals do not intend to, under any circumstances, incite its followers to judge or demean another religion for the purpose of its own growth and propagation. Therefore, it is incumbent on the followers of the religion to stand by the ideals of their faith and God".

"The whole object of religion is to enable humans to evolve themselves into better beings.Unfortunately, in many instances, people get blindly attached to their religious beliefs and tend to make demeaning statements against other religions", HC observed.

Indian Secularism based on equal tolerance of all religions

The Court also discussed the concept of "Indian Secularism", which was said to be based on "equal tolerance of all religions". Indian Secularism was distinct from Western Secularism as it is not anti-religious. It gives to all its citizens equal freedom of conscience and religion.

"The failure to practice tolerance would only lead to a form of alienation from one's fellow citizens and the same will have a cascading effect on various other factors that are instrumental in maintaining peace, order and brotherhood in the State and this cannot be put to jeopardy at any cost", the judgment observed.

Influential religious leaders, irrespective of religion, should exercise caution while propagating religion

The Court expressed a strong view that "as persons capable of influencing large sections of the society that is driven by its religious sentiments, one needs to be extremely cautious and conscientious in exercising their rights, be it one of expression, religion or any other right".

"This Court holds a strong view that as persons capable of influencing large sections of the society that is driven by its religious sentiments, one needs to be extremely cautious and conscientious in exercising their rights, be it one of expression, religion or any other right. It cannot be at the cost of injuring the sentiments and rights of other fellow citizens who also form a constituent part of the rich culture and value system that our nation embodies. This Court would not hesitate to say that it is in fact the fundamental duty cast upon every citizen to 'preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture', and that such heritage and culture cannot be at any circumstance seen as one independent of the religious, cultural and civilizational sentiments that have been rooted, ingrained and etched in the history, soul and spirit of this nation", the judgment further said.

The judgment added:

"This Court deemed it fit to express its mind not only to the Petitioner but also to persons who are similarly placed, irrespective of their religious identity, so that they realise their responsibility and exercise more caution while propagating their religion. If this is not followed, it will spell danger to the secular fabric of this country. It may even lead to eroding one of the basic structures of our Constitution"

Justice Venkatesh also voiced a concern that Indian society has fallen into the hands of misconceptions and extremities in the name of religion.

"..this Court finds it relevant and the need of the hour to acknowledge and call aloud that we as a society have fallen and are falling into the hands of misconceptions and extremities in the name of securing and practicing our respective religious beliefs. These extremities have always known to incite hatred, violence, bloodshed and bitterness across history."

Forgiveness an act of grace

The Court ultimately proceeded to quash the FIRs against the petitioner after he expressed "deep regret and sincere remorse" over his remarks.

"I make it immensely clear that it was never my intention to defy either the sacred places of Hindus or their Gods or any other faith for that matter. Yet, I feel with much remorse that my words had led to such kind of impressions among the Hindus. I assure that I would take adequate care so as to avoid such occurrences in future", his statement of apology submitted in the Court said.

The FIRs filed against him cited Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion etc.), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings), 505 (public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court appreciated the efforts taken by Senior Advocate Issac Mohanlal, who appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, for the fair stand that was taken by him in this case.

The Court also appreciated the counsel who appeared on behalf of the defacto complainants who convinced their clients, "paving way for the Petitioner to open a new chapter in his life".

"To err is human, to forgive divine". After all the Petitioner has erred in making certain statements without understanding its consequences. He has realised his fault and has expressed regret by filing an affidavit before this Court. This Court expressed its mind to condone the act of the Petitioner without further precipitating the situation. The complainants also realised that forgiveness is an act of grace and have given a chance to the Petitioner to change his attitude and to be more careful with the statements that he makes in future.This Court is confident that the Petitioner has learnt his lesson from this incident and the criminal proceedings must therefore, end here without going after the blood of the Petitioner", the Court said in conclusion.

Case Details

Title : Mohan C Lazarus v State

Bench : Justice Anand Venkatesh

Appearances : Senior Advocate Issac Mohanlal for petitioner; M Mohamed Riyaz for respondents.