MADURAI: While change of religion by an individual cannot be and ought not to be objected to, religious conversion as a group agenda cannot be accepted, observed the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on Friday. Justice GR Swaminathan made the observation while partly allowing a petition filed by Kanniyakumari priest P George Ponnaiah to quash an FIR registered against him for his ‘hate speech’ delivered at Arumanai in July 2021. The priest was booked on charges of making derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, and for insulting ‘Bharat Mata’.
Justice Swaminathan exonerated the priest from some of the charges; namely sections 143, 269 and 506(1) of the IPC and section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, saying the meeting could not be termed as an ‘unlawful assembly’ and none of the participants contracted Covid-19 infection due to the meeting. However, the charges under sections 153A, 295A and 505(2) of the IPC are prima facie attracted as the priest’s speech had indeed hurt the religious sentiments of a section of Hindus and could promote hatred, disharmony between religious groups, he observed.
The founding fathers adopted secularism as the guiding principle of the country and made the right to freely profess and propagate one’s religion a fundamental right. So, if an individual out of personal conviction wants to change his religion, his choice must be respected, the judge said. “But religious conversion cannot be a group agenda. Our Constitution speaks of composite culture. This character (including the religious demographic profile of places) has to be maintained,” he opined.
The judge also took judicial notice of the existence of crypto Christians (Scheduled Caste Hindus who have converted to Christianity, but identify as Hindus on record for availing reservation) and said this is the reason why despite the 2011 census figures showing Hindus to be the majority community in Kanniyakumari, the petitioner boasted that the Christian community had crossed 62 per cent population in the district and would soon reach 72 per cent. The priest had then openly warned the Hindus that nothing could stop this, the judge further noted.
Justice Swaminathan also referred to several literary works to explain how ‘Bharat Mata’ is represented in various forms and is worshipped by the Hindus. “While a civic nationalist believes in India as a secular conception with the Constitution as its guiding light, to a religious nationalist, India is Bharat Mata,” he observed. Hence, by painting ‘Bhuma Devi’ and ‘Bharat Mata’ as sources of infection and filth, the priest has outraged the religious feelings of the Hindus, the judge held.
Stating that the priest’s words were “sufficiently provocative” and “reek of malice and supremacism” and that the State cannot be a mute spectator in such situations, the judge refused to quash the remaining charges in the FIR. Pointing out that Jesus had taught people to love one another, Justice Swaminathan went on to add, “I am certain that on the Judgment Day, God shall admonish the petitioner for having committed an un-Christian act.”