Reports Of "Christian Persecution" In India False : Centre Tells Supreme Court Opposing Plea By Catholic Bishop & Evangelical Group

The Central Government has opposed a PIL filed seeking directions to stop alleged attacks agaianst Christians in the country by saying that the petitioners have resorted to 'falsehood and some selective self-serving document' and mere conjectures.

The preliminary objection has been filed by the Central Government through the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs in response to the PIL filed by Archbishop Of Bangalore Diocese Dr. Peter Machado along with the National Solidarity Forum, the Evangelical Fellowship of India.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed today a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna that the Centre has filed a prelimiary note of objections. Senior Advocate Dr Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioners, sought for time to respond to the Centre's note. Accordingly, the matter has been adjourned to August 25. 

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 that "enquiries reveal that majority of the incidents alleged as Christian persecution in these reports were either false or wrongfully projected".

"The petitioners claimed to have based the petition on information gathered through sources like press reports (The Wire, The Scroll, Hindustan Times, Dainik Bhaskar, etc.), "independent" online databases and from findings of various non-profit organisations. It is submitted that enquiries reveal that majority of the incidents alleged as Christian persecution in these reports were either false or wrongfully projected," the Centre's note said.

It further submits that criminal cases arising out of personal issues have been given communal colour. The Centre's response suggests that any complaint made against Christians have been cited as instances of persecution of the community. It contends that legal actions taken by local administration against illegal constructions are also projected as targeting a particular religion.

An illustration provided by the Central Government to substantiate its claim reads as under -

"...it was mentioned that one Varsha and her family (Christian) were heckled by some people at their home in Shahgarh (district Sagar, Madhya Pradesh) for not celebrating Diwali (November 6, 2021). However, it appears that there was a private dispute between the two parties, which had nothing to do with religious background of the two parties. In the said case, both parties had filed cases and counter cases against each other with the local police."

It emphasises that the news reports relied upon by the petitioners are misleading and self-serving. 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. It points out the report by the Evangelical Fellowship of India-Religious Liberty Commission (EFI-RLC) titled 'Hate and targeted violence against Christians in India, 2021', wherein, the Centre claims, 162 incidents were not truthfully recorded and the remaining 139 were either false or deliberately projected as violence against members of the Christian community. The report prepared by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), the UCF, and United Against Hate (UAH) is also assailed on the ground that as per preliminary enquiries the facts and figures provided therein are unfounded; uncorroborated. The Centre's response lists out the news reports relied upon the petitioners which it claims to contain distorted facts. It 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.

On the last date of hearing, a Bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and J.B. Pardiwala 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. In this regard, the Centre's response states that another bench of the Apex Court which is already in seisin of the issue of implementation of guidelines in Tehseen Poonawalla had directed the State Governments to report compliance of the said guidelines.

[Case Title: Most Rev Dr. Peter Machado v UOI & Ors.] WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 137 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order