Madras High Court
Mohan C.Lazarus vs State Rep.By on 5 February, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR.N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P Nos.250 of 2021 & Crl.OP.Nos. 895, 896, 899, 901, 909, 911,
919 and 2733 of 2019 and 26841 of 2018
Crl.MP.Nos.15481/2018, 579, 596/2019, 581/2019,
589/2019,1750/2019, 576/2019, 599/2019, 575/2019,124/2020,
122/2021,
Crl.OP.No.250 of 2021
Mohan C.Lazarus
S/o.Chithirai Pandi,
Founder Jesus Redeems,
Nalumavadi, Turicorin District.
..Petitioner/Accused
.Vs.
1.State rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Ariyalur Police Station,
Ariyalur District.
(Crime No.396/2018) ..1st Respondent/
Complainant
2.Muthuvel ..2nd Respondent/
De facto Complainant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
PRAYER in Crl.OP.No.250/2021: Criminal Original Petition filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records
relating to the complaint in STC No.603 of 2020, pending on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Ariyalur and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.Issac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel
(in All Crl.OPs) for M/s.Isaac Chambers
For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
(in All Crl.OPs) Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.G.Karthikeyan
for de facto complainant
COMMON ORDER
These batch of petitions demonstrate how certain mindless
and reckless statements made by a person under the grips of religious
fervour puts him in a piquant situation, resulting in a barrage of criminal
complaints given against him by all those persons whose religious
sentiments were affected by those statements.
2.The Petitioner in all these petitions is the founder of ‘Jesus
Redeems Ministry’ which is a Trust run by him for the last forty years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
The Petitioner is an evangelist. On one of the occasions, the Petitioner
while addressing a group of his followers, had made certain statements
about Hindu temples and Hindu Gods to those group of persons. At a
later point of time, the video containing the speech given by the
Petitioner was circulated on social media and it had spread across the
length and breadth of Tamil Nadu. Various complaints were given at
different police stations across Tamil Nadu against the Petitioner, by
persons belonging to the Hindu religion on the ground that the
statements made by the Petitioner in the meeting about Hindu Temples
and Hindu Gods affected theirreligious sentiments and feelings.
Therefore, several FIRs came to be registered for offences under
sections 153A(1)(a), 153A(1)(b), 295A, 505(1)(b) and 505(1)(c) of the
Indian Penal Code, 1806. Some of the cases also resulted in filing of
final report for the said offences. These petitions have been filed under
Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash
the FIRs/ criminal proceedings against the Petitioner. The particulars of
the cases registered against the Petitioner is extracted hereinunder by
way of a tabular column:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3. When all these matters came up for final hearing, this
Court asked Mr. Issac Mohanlal, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioner, as to when and where the Petitioner had made
the alleged statements. The learned senior counsel in all fairness
submitted that the Petitioner addressed a gathering in an indoor
auditorium at Avadi, Chennai on 18.03.2016 and during that occasion,
the Petitioner had made certain statements and that those statements
were not intended to wound the religious feelings and sentiments of the
Hindus. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the video was
released in a truncated manner with ulterior motives in the year 2018.
The learned senior counsel submitted that he is not trying to justify or
support the statements made by the Petitioner and that he does not
endorse the views expressed by the Petitioner on that occasion. He
further submitted that it was a gathering of like-minded persons, within
closed doors, where the Petitioner was answering some question that
was raised by one of the participants. This was not a public meeting
addressed by the Petitioner and the statements made by the Petitioner
was not intended to be made to persons belonging to the Hindu
religion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4. This Court expressed its mind to the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and made it clear that the
statements made by the Petitioner are reckless and it does not auger
well withthe stature of a pastor who has been running a Trust to
propagate Christianity for the last forty years. This Court therefore,
requested the learned senior counsel to take instructions from his client
as to whether he will tender an unconditional apology for the
statements made by him and give an undertaking that he will not repeat
such conduct in future. The learned senior counsel sought some time
and submitted that he will advise the Petitioner to express regret for the
statements made by him and also give an undertaking before this Court.
5.When the matter was taken up for hearing on 02.02.2021,
a common affidavit came to be filed by the Petitioner. The relevant
portions in the affidavit are extracted hereinunder:
“1. I respectfully state that I have been prosecuted
for offences under Sections 153, 153-A(1)(a) & (b), 295-A,
505(1)(b) and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code for
allegedly making statements against Hindu Temples and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Gods which were published throughout the State by way of
video records and those statements had allegedly wounded
the religious feelings and sentiments of the Hindus.
2. At the outset, I express my deep regret and sincere
remorse for giving room for such kind of an incident which
wounded the feelings and sentiments of the Hindu
population. I never intended to create such impressions in
the minds of anyone, much less the Hindu people. Some of
my words uttered privately to a few people in a chamber at
Avadi in Chennai on 18.03.2016 have been wantonly
published and calculatingly circulated in truncated forms
with the malevolent aim of tarnishing my name and image
and disrupting the missionary service I am involved in.
3. 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.
4. I also wish to state that no sooner such
allegations surface, I did send letter to the Sub-Inspector
of Police, Kurumbur Police Station, Thoothukudi, dated
02.10.2018 (copy enclosed) clearly stating that I did not
make any such statements intending to offend or would the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
religious sentiments of anyone. I also released a video
clipping dated 03.10.2018 expressing the same. I again
reiterate my regrets. I would ensure such instances do not
happen anymore.”
6.This Court, on going through the affidavit, was convinced
that the Petitioner had filed the affidavit after realising the consequence
of certain reckless statements made by him and that he has whole
heartedly sought pardon with an undertaking that he will abstain from
such conduct in future. This Court brought to the notice of the counsel
appearing on behalf of the defacto complainants, the affidavit filed by
the Petitioner, and requested them to take instructions from their clients.
This Court advised the counsel appearing for the defacto complainants
not to precipitate the matter any further since it involves religious
sentiments, and to gracefully bring to an end, the criminal cases
pending against the Petitioner.
7. When the matter was taken up for hearing today i.e.
05.02.2021, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto
complainants, fairly submitted that they will leave the decision to this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Court and they only want an assurance that the Petitioner does not
indulge in making such insensitive statements affecting the religious
sentiments, in future.
8. The whole object of religion is to enable humans to
evolve themselves into better beings. The religious system is anchored
upon beliefs. Such beliefs emanate lot of sentiments and emotions, and
any statements or comments made against them invariably result in
strong reactions. Unfortunately, in many instances, people get blindly
attached to their religious beliefs and tend to make demeaning
statements against other religions. They do not realise that spirituality is
not a medium through which each religion competes with each other to
show its superiority over the other. People who make such reckless
statements think that such statements will make their religious beliefs
superior and the beliefs that they demean, inferior. This is not the
purpose of religion and religious faiths, and such acts only offend the
religious faith of the concerned persons. Spewing venom against
another religious faith and developing hatred among the followers of a
particular religion against another, defies the very purpose of religion,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
which is meant to help a human being evolve towards higher truths.
9. The responsibility lies more with persons who are involved
in the propagation of religions. 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 Petitioner is not involved
in some competitive business. Therefore, he is not warranted to make
statements merely to show his religion in superior light than that of
others’. If the Petitioner has any such notions, it is high time that he
changes himself for his own good and that of his followers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
10.At this juncture, this Court is faced with a triangular issue
of freedom of expression, secularism and tolerance. The questions as to
what these terms individually mean, what is their scope, at which point
they meet each other and the reasonable restriction that can be laid on
the right to freedom of expression, as against the ideals of secularism
and tolerance (the former being one of the pillars of the Constitution)
are ones that have been dealt with at lengths and breadths by the
Courts. This Court is not inclined to nor does it deem it necessary to go
into the same, as such an exercise in not warranted under the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand.
11.Whereas on the other hand, 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
12.The constitutional ideal of secularism was not built into
our Constitution for no reason. While secularism in the West is usually
taken to be emphasising the separation of the state and religion, Indian
secularism stresses the equal tolerance of all religions. While the
concept of secularism has its origins in Europe, the meaning ascribed to
it in India is accompanied by a significant variation as compared to the
West. As elicited by Pantham, T. (1997). Indian Secularism and
Its Critics: Some Reflections. The Review of Politics, 59(3),
523-540., “Given the pervasive religiosity of the people and the
pluralism of religions, an ethico-politically appropriate pattern of
relationship between religion and state has to be one that stressed the
equal respect of all religions, rather than the erection of any
insurmountable “wall of separation” between the state and religion.
13.Indian secularism is sui generis in nature. The Preamble
of the Indian Constitution did not contain the word “secular” as a
signification of the State until it was done so by a 1976 amendment. It
must, however, be noted that the original constitution did contain
several provisions, which left no room for doubt about the secular
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
character of the Indian state and which, in 1973, made the Hon’ble
Supreme Court to rule that “secularism” is a constitutive feature of the
basic structure of the Constitution. The 1976 amendment to the
Constitution brings out that all citizens are enjoined to consider it their
fundamental duty to “preserve the rich heritage of our composite
culture”. Therefore, Indian Secularism is not one that is anti-religious
but one that gives to all its citizens equal freedom of conscience and
religion.
14.This brings us to the question as to how this
constitutional ideal is meant to be preserved and secured. As discussed
above, Indian secularism takes its roots from the notion of equal
tolerance of all religions, in distinction to the aspect of separation of
State and religion as followed by Western secularism. What then is
tolerance in light of secularism? Scanlon TM,“The Difficulty of
Tolerance: Essays in Political Philosophy”(Cambridge University
Press 2003) has discussed on this aspect and this Court finds it
appropriate to adopt the author’s elucidation of the same. “Tolerance”,
as he rightly points out, “requires us to accept people and permit their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
practices even when we strongly disapprove of them. ‘Tolerance thus
involves an attitude that is intermediate between wholehearted
acceptance and unrestrained opposition.’…. While respect for each other
does not require us to abandon our disagreement, it does place limits
on howthis conflict can be pursued. He draws a distinction between
formal politics and informal politics and brings the competition among
religious groups within the embrace of informal politics and states, “A
tolerant society, I want to say, is one that is democratic in its informal
politics. This democracy is a matter of law and institutions. But it is also,
importantly and irreducibly, a matter of attitude….. A tolerant person’s
attitude is this: ‘Even though we disagree, they are as fully members of
society as I am. They are entitled as I am to the protections of the law,
as entitled as I am to live as they choose to live. In addition (and this is
the hard part) neither their way of living nor mine is uniquely the way of
our society.” 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
15.It is fit to note that the Sermon on the Mount which is
Jesus’s instruction for all disciples, to be carried forth in every area of
life, states as follows:
“Do not judge, so that you will not be judged. For
by what judgment you judge, you will be judged, and by
what measure you measure out, it will be measured out
to you. And why do you see the speck that is in your
brother’s eye, but do not notice the beam of wood in
your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother,
‘Allow me to remove the speck from your eye’, and
behold, the beam of wood is in your own eye?
Hypocrite! First remove the beam of wood from your
own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the
speck from your brother’s eye!”
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.
16.In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill, one of the greatest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
defenders of free speech, says a struggle always occurs between
competing demands of authority and liberty. He argues that we cannot
secure the latter without the former: “All that makes existence valuable
to anyone depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of
other people. Some rules of conduct, therefore, must be imposed- by
law in the first place, and by opinion on many things which are not fit
subjects for the operation of law.”
17.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
have been rooted, ingrained and etched in the history, soul and spirit of
this nation.
18.This Court deemed it fit to express its mind not only to
the Petitioner but also to personswho 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.
19.“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
incident and the criminal proceedings must therefore, end here without
going after the blood of the Petitioner. This Court has to acknowledge
and appreciate the efforts taken by the learned senior counsel who
appeared on behalf of the Petitioner for the fair stand that was taken by
him in this case. Appreciation is also equally due to 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.
20.In the result, all the Criminal Original Petitions are
allowed and the respective FIRs and the criminal proceedings shall
stand quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
05.02.2021
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
KP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Ariyalur Police Station,
Ariyalur District.
2. Judicial Magistrate Court No.I,
Ariyalur.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
N. ANAND VENKATESH,. J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
KP
Pre-Delivery Common order in
Crl.O.P Nos.250 of 2021 & Crl.OP.Nos. 895, 896,
899, 901, 909, 911, 919 and 2733 of 2019
and 26841 of 2018
05.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
