Danger to secularism: Madras HC tells evangelist who derided Hinduism, junks FIR

The court said that propagation of any religion cannot be at the cost of injuring the sentiments and rights of fellow citizens who are part of the rich culture and value system that India embodies.

While quashing FIRs against evangelist Mohan C Lazarus who apologised unconditionally for his statements against Hindu temples, the Madras high court on Friday came down strongly on religious leaders preaching superiority of their religion over others.

Madras high court warned that intolerance of other religions threatens peace and liberty. (HT File)

“Spewing venom against another religious faith and developing hatred among the followers of a particular religion against another, defies the very purpose of religion, which is meant to help a human being evolve towards higher truths,” the court said.

The case, which came up before a single judge bench of justice N Anand Venkatesh, brought focus on values of liberty, secularism and tolerance. “The responsibility lies more with persons who are involved in the propagation of religions,” the court said. “... Every word uttered by any person holding an influential status in their respective religion has the potential to make or mar the inner development of a person,” the court observed adding that the petitioner “is not involved in some competitive business” and if millions of his followers blindly follow what he propagates “it will only sow seeds of hatred among people across religious faiths.”

The court added that it cannot be “at the cost of injuring the sentiments and rights” of fellow citizens who are “part of the rich culture and value system that our nation embodies”. The court warned, “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.”

While pointing out that it was faced with a “triangular issue of freedom of expression, secularism and tolerance”, the court found it relevant 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.”

The court made a distinction between secularism in the West as emphasising on the separation between state and religion but in India “secularism stresses the equal tolerance of all religions.” The court said it deemed fit to express its mind towards all people placed in the position of the petitioner irrespective of their religious identities. Without taking names, the justice also made an oral observation about a BJP functionary, R Kalyanaraman, who was charged recently for making a hate speech against Islam in Coimbatore district. “Indian secularism is not one that is anti-religious but one that gives to all its citizens, equal freedom of conscience and religion,” the court said.

The de facto complainants in the case also wanted to bring a ‘graceful end’ to the matter with an assurance from the petitioner that he will not make such statements in the future. While quashing the numerous FIRs filed to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the court also quoted Jesus Christ “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.”