Supreme Court Stays Criminal Proceedings Against Christian Missionary In MP For Alleged Illegal Conversion

The Supreme Court on Friday (January 5) ordered a stay of criminal proceedings pending in a trial court in Madhya Pradesh against Christian missionary Ajai Lall in a case for alleged forced conversion of two foster children and their parents to Christianity.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed the stay order, which will remain in force till the matter is finally disposed of by the Supreme Court. During the hearing, CJI orally asked how the offence of human trafficking (Section 370 Indian Penal Code) is applicable in the case as there is no such allegation.

The petitioner is facing charges under Sections 370, and 186 of the IPC along with S. 3 and 5 of the M.P. Dharmik Swantrata Adhiniyam, 2021 (M.P. Act, 2021) and S. 42 and 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. He has approached the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of the MP High Court refusing to quash the case.

The criminal case was filed on a complaint by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) pursuant to a viral video of a woman who claimed that she, her husband and children were asked to convert to Christianity in exchange for money and were harassed by the petitioner when they stopped going to church.  

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that on the last hearing date, December 15, 2023, an undertaking was made on behalf of the State that they would not pursue the trial till January 5, 2024. However, despite such an undertaking, the trial court continued the proceedings, Sibal said.  “This cannot be, the judge read the order and yet she continued,” he said. Sibal asserted that the trial should be transferred to another court.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the State, submitted, “I am not saying anything against Mr. Sibal, I am agreeing with him, the learned judge should not have done that...But we abided by our statement. We did not produce our witnesses that is recorded on the next day." SG made a statement that the State would inform the trial judge that the trial shall not proceed till the Supreme Court decides the matter.  "I am making that statement that the learned judge shall not proceed till your lordship decides the matter. We will inform the learned judge, both of us, that." SG said while emphasising that the matter is serious. 

The CJI referring to the previous order of this Court, verbally expressed that the Court had recorded on the earlier hearing that the counsel appearing for the State of MP submitted, “that no further steps shall be taken to pursue the trial till 5 January 2024.”

Sibal submitted that the lower court has interpreted the Supreme Court's order to mean that no instructions have been given to the trial court to stop the proceedings. “ My lords how can a judge reading the order, proceed in such fashion?”

The SG replied, “Why this happened I must explain. They(petitioners) have said that the Supreme Court has stayed the proceedings, therefore the learned judge writes that the Supreme Court has not stayed the proceedings.”

CJI said that to put the confusion at rest, the Court will order a stay on the trial. SG however requested the CJI to not pass a stay order and instead record his undertaking.

Clarifying the issue at once, the CJI in the order observed, “ On 15 December 2023, this court while issuing notice recorded the statement of counsel for the state of Madhya Pradesh to the effect that that no further steps shall be taken to pursue the trial till 5 January 2024. It appears that the trial judge was under a misapprehension with regard to the true intent and meaning of the order of this court. To obviate any further confusion on this aspect we direct that there should be a stay of further proceedings in the trial, till the matter is taken up by this court for final disposal ”

In the concluding part of the hearing, the CJI also asked the SG as to how a case of human trafficking under S.370 of IPC could be made out in the present facts as “ex facie that is not the allegation”. To which the SG replied, “My lords, I'll satisfy. On 370 my lords there are other contentions which we'll satisfy. It is a serious issue, we are dealing with children my lords”

Case Details : AJAI LALL vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SLP(Crl) No. 016122 - / 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order