The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the Punjab and Haryana High Court order permitting a CBI preliminary enquiry against Pastor Ankur Yoseph Narula in a PIL alleging religious conversions and other activities.
The bench disposed of the petition filed by Narula challenging the interim order of the HC.
The HC had permitted the Enforcement Directorate to share two sealed-cover reports with the Central Bureau of Investigation and had granted liberty to the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry against Pastor Ankur Yoseph Narula and his wife, Sonia Narula.
A bench comprising Justice P S Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said, "We are not inclined to interfere with the interim order passed by the High Court."
The Court, however, requested the High Court to hear the parties and decide the objection regarding the locus of the PIL petitioner before examining the merits of the matter.
"It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter," the bench ordered.
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the petitioners, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Mohan Rao appeared for the respondents.
A PIL was instituted by Tejasvi Minhas, President of Punjab Bachao Morcha, against 31 respondents before the High Court, including Ankur Yoseph Narula, founder and Senior Pastor of "The Church of Signs and Wonders", Jalandhar, and Sonia Narula.
The PIL raised allegations concerning religious conversions, healing advertisements, foreign missionaries, FCRA, money laundering, construction, GST, social media activity and political influence.
It sought investigations by the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI, freezing of bank accounts, attachment of properties, restraint upon construction and deactivation of social media accounts.
An FIR was also registered against Respondent No. 1 under Sections 285, 223 and 196(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The FIR is relied upon only as part of the pre-existing adversarial background and the chronology bearing upon motive, candour and bona fides; it is not pleaded as an automatic disqualification from maintaining a PIL.
Subsequently, he addressed a representation to the Enforcement Directorate, alleging foreign funding and money-laundering activities against the petitioners.
The Supreme Court's order means the preliminary enquiry can proceed, but the High Court must first decide whether the PIL petitioner has the locus to maintain the PIL.
The case will now return to the High Court for a hearing on locus and then merits.
