Religion is not a competitive business. Therefore, spewing venom against other religious faiths and developing hatred against followers of a particular religion defies its purpose, which is to help a human being evolve towards higher truths, the Madras High Court observed on Friday.
The court made the observation while quashing two chargesheets and eight First Information Reports registered against evangelist Mohan C. Lazarus. The evangelist was accused of having made certain statements about Hindu gods and temples in a closed-door meeting at Avadi in Chennai in March, 2016. Truncated videos of the meet surfaced on social media in 2018 and created a furore.
“We as a society have fallen and are falling into the hands of misconceptions and extremities in the name of securing and practising our respective religious beliefs. These extremities have always been known to incite hatred, violence, bloodshed and bitterness across history,” wrote Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.
“The 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 on equal tolerance of all religions. The concept of secularism has its origins in Europe but the meaning ascribed to it in India has a significant variation,” he added.
“Indian secularism is sui generis [unique] in nature… It is not one that is anti-religious but one that gives to all its citizens equal freedom of conscience and religion. The failure to practice tolerance would only lead to alienation from fellow citizens and have a cascading effect on maintaining peace, order and brotherhood which cannot be put to jeopardy at any cost.” The judge appreciated senior counsel Isaac Mohanlal, representing the evangelist, for not justifying the “reckless statements which do not augur well with the stature of a pastor.” Justice Venkatesh decided to condone the act of the petitioner after he filed an affidavit expressing regret and promised not to repeat such acts in the future.
“To err is human, to forgive divine. After all, the petitioner has erred in making certain statements without understanding its consequences… This court is confident that the petitioner has learnt his lesson from this incident and the criminal proceedings must, therefore, end here without going after the blood of the petitioner,” he observed.
Giving a piece of advice to people who propagate different religious faiths, the judge said: “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. “Such heritage and culture cannot at any circumstance be seen as one independent of the religious, cultural and civilizational sentiments that have been rooted, ingrained and etched in the history, soul and spirit of this nation… 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.”
