No Religion is the ‘Only True’ One: HC says such claims Disparage other Faiths, Refuses Relief

Recently, the Allahabad High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a priest accused of making statements on religion, observing that describing any faith as the “only true religion” may, at a prima facie level, amount to disparaging others. The case brings into focus a sensitive legal question, where the line is drawn between religious expression and speech that risks offending the beliefs of others in a constitutionally secular framework.

The prosecution's case stemmed from allegations that Reverend Father Vineet Vincent Pereira, during religious gatherings, repeatedly proclaimed Christianity as the sole true religion, which, according to the complainant, offended the sentiments of members of another faith. While the investigation did not substantiate claims of illegal religious conversion, the police proceeded with charges on the basis that the statements amounted to an affront to religious beliefs. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, contending that the FIR lacked the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 295A of the IPC and that the magistrate had taken cognizance mechanically, without proper judicial scrutiny. The State, however, argued that the issues raised involved factual disputes that could only be tested during trial and not at the preliminary stage.

Justice Saurabh Srivastava placed emphasis on the constitutional ethos of secularism, observing that “it is wrong for any religion to claim that it is the only true religion as it implies a disparagement of other faiths.” The Court noted that Section 295A of the IPC specifically targets deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, and the material placed on record was sufficient to establish a prima facie case at this stage. It further clarified that while taking cognizance, a magistrate is only required to assess whether the allegations disclose an offence and is not expected to undertake a detailed evaluation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial.

Holding that the petitioner’s arguments pertained to disputed questions of fact, the Court found no ground to exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings and allowed the trial to continue.

Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.