The Supreme Court on Monday accused the Tamil Nadu government of prima facie giving “political colour” to a case concerning the “very serious” issue of religious conversions through force, deceit, and allurement, which is a concern for the entire nation.
The oral observation came from a Bench of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar when senior advocate P. Wilson, for Tamil Nadu, said the petitioner, advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, was a “BJP spokesperson”, “facing a case of sedition” and the case was “politically motivated”.
Wilson said the issue of religious conversion was a State subject under List 2 Entry 1 of the Constitution. There were no illegal religious conversions in Tamil Nadu as alleged by the petitioner. A law on religious conversions of 2002 was subsequently repealed in Tamil Nadu.
“Leave this matter to the legislature. There is no threat of conversion in our State. This is a politically motivated litigation. He (Upadhyay) has made Tamil Nadu, the State government, a party,” Wilson objected vociferously.
“Do not try to bring political colour. Prima facie today the State government wants to bring political colour. We are concerned with the people… You may have so many reasons to be agitated like this but do it outside. We are considering a particular issue and not concerned with the ‘A’, ‘B’, or ‘C’ State. If it (forcible or deceitful religious conversions) is happening in your State, it is bad. If it is not happening, then good. We are not targeting only one State,” Justice Shah addressed Wilson.
The court said the alleged antecedents of Upadhyay made “no difference”. “When a case is brought to the court, the court will decide… Restrict yourselves to the point under consideration,” Justice Shah said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed that the issue of illegal conversions was of “national interest”.
The court asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani for his assistance, considering “the seriousness and importance” of the case. “There is a difference between the freedom of religion and the freedom of conversion. Everybody can, but there are ways and not by allurement. What should be done? What corrective measures can be taken?” Justice Shah outlined the issue to the Attorney General.
Upadhyay said he was addressing “an act of aggression” in his petition. He vehemently opposed a submission that his petition was not backed by any data whatsoever that illegal religious conversions were happening in the country. “I have books to show,” he said, raising a pile of books in court.
One of the lawyers said “scurrilous remarks” were made in the petition regarding minorities. He referred to social media posts. “Don’t bother about allegations and counter-allegations. The law will take its own course,” Justice Shah said.
“But the law is made on the basis of facts,” the lawyer said. The Bench took note of senior advocate Sanjay Hegde’s suggestion, backed by Venkataramani, to re-name the case, saying this could be done in “contentious PILs”. The court re-named the case as ‘In re: On the issue of religious conversions’.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, who was appearing for Upadhyay, submitted there was no specific provision in the Indian Penal Code on illegal conversions. “That is for the legislature to consider… whether to amend the IPC or not. But we have to consider the issue in the larger perspective and see what can be done in this situation,” Justice Shah said, posting the case for February 7.
On November 11, the Bench led by Justice Shah had highlighted that religious conversions by means of force, allurement or fraud may “ultimately affect the security of the nation and freedom of religion and conscience of citizens” while directing the Centre to “step in” and clarify what it intends to do to curb compulsory or deceitful religious conversions.
On December 5, the court had orally observed that conversion should not be the hidden intention behind charity and good work. The Ministry of Home Affairs had filed an affidavit saying that the right to religion did not include the right to convert other people to a particular religion, especially through fraud, deception, coercion, allurement, and other means.
The Ministry had said the word ‘propagate’ in Article 25 (right to freedom of religion) did not include the right to convert.
The government had said, “fraudulent or induced conversion impinged upon the right to freedom of conscience of an individual apart from hampering public order and, therefore, the state is well within its power to regulate/restrict it”. The Centre had said statutes enacted in the past to curb “the menace of organized, sophisticated large-scale illegal conversion” was upheld by the Supreme Court.
At first T.N. Assembly session of 2023, a Governor Vs CM face-off
In an unprecedented face-off, Tamil Nadu Governor R. N. Ravi on Monday abruptly walked out of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly as Chief Minister M. K. Stalin disapproved of his selective deviation from the approved text of the Governor’s customary address to the House, and moved a resolution to take on record only the transcript distributed to the members.
Trouble began in the New Year’s first Assembly session, after the Governor deviated from the approved text and skipped a paragraph containing references to certain national and regional stalwarts as well as the term “Dravidian Model” of governance.
Objecting to Ravi’s action, soon after Speaker M. Appavu read out the Tamil translation of the Governor’s tabled address, Stalin moved a resolution to retain on the Assembly records, only the printed and approved speech copy that was presented to members of the House earlier. He said that portions “inserted” or “omitted” by the Governor in his oral address should not be part of the records.
The paragraph number 65 skipped by Ravi read: “Following the principles and ideals of stalwarts like Thanthai Periyar, Anna Ambedkar, Perunthalaivar Kamarajar, Perarignar Anna and Muthamizh Arignar Kalaignar, this government has been delivering the much acclaimed Dravidian Model of governance to its people.”
However, elsewhere in his speech the Governor had mentioned “Kalaignar” denoting the former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi. He had also included, out of text, certain remarks on Swami Vivekananda and the Union Government’s actions on issues concerning Tamil Nadu fishermen.
The Governor also did not read a reference to the management of the law and order situation because of which, as per the text, “Tamil Nadu continues to be a haven of peace and is attracting numerous foreign investments and is becoming a forerunner in all sectors.”
Describing the act of the Governor as “very sad and against the tradition of the Assembly,” Stalin pointed out that he had omitted portions of “the speech prepared by the State government and approved by him (Mr. Ravi).”
“We conducted ourselves in a manner to accord full respect to the Governor who came to the Assembly to deliver his address as per the Constitution. But he acted not only against our ideology, but also against the government by not reading the speech prepared by the government and approved by him,” the Chief Minister said while moving a resolution seeking to relax the Assembly Rule 17 to retain, in the House records, only the printed speech in English and its Tamil version read by the Speaker in its entirety.
The Chief Minister told the House that the Speech was prepared by the government and the printed version was distributed to the members only after the Governor gave his nod. “Though the Governor was functioning totally against the Dravidian model government and it was unacceptable to us, we did not record our opposition as we are in the government,” he added.
When Stalin was speaking, the Governor, who is not conversant in Tamil, was seen asking his secretary as to what the Chief Minister was saying in the House. Upon learning that the House was about to move the resolution, a visibly agitated Ravi quickly paced out of the Assembly hall without waiting for the proceedings to conclude. He left before the resolution was adopted and the national anthem was played.
The resolution, which also sought not to take on record, certain extempore references and omissions by the Governor, was later adopted by the House. Briefing journalists after the proceedings, Industries Minister Thangam Thennarasu said the prepared speech was sent to the Governor on January 5 and he gave his approval on January 7. “It (Governor’s action in the House) is unacceptable because he not only deviated from the speech approved by him, but also refused to make references to the leaders including Dr. [B.R.] Ambedkar, the architect of the Indian Constitution,” he said.
Thennarasu also accused the Governor of “disrespecting” the National Anthem by walking out of the House before it was played.
Earlier in the day, the legislators of the Congress and the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK) — both allies of the ruling DMK — staged a walk-out shouting slogans hailing “Tamil Nadu” in response to the Governor’s recent remarks that “Tamilagam” would be a more appropriate name for the State of Tamil Nadu. They also charged that the Governor was responsible for the deaths of those who allegedly lost money in online gambling since he has not given his nod to the Bill banning online gambling.
Videocon Group loan case: Bombay HC calls Chanda and Deepak Kochhar’s arrest illegal and orders release
The Bombay High Court has ordered the release of ICICI Bank’s chief executive officer and managing director Chanda Kochhar and her husband Deepak Kochhar and said that their arrest was “illegal” in the ICICI bank fraud case.
A division bench of justices Revati Mohitedere and PK Chavan held the arrest was not in accordance with Section 41A (notice of appearance before police officer) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bench ordered Kochhar’s release from Byculla jail and Kochhar’s release from Arthur Road Jail on a cash bond of ₹1 lakh.
The couple was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on December 23, 2022, and Videocon group promoter Venugopal Dhoot was arrested on December 26, 2022. He is also in Arthur Road Jail.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Kochhar and her husband Deepak seeking immediate release and for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) against them. The CBI has alleged that ICICI bank under the leadership of Kochhar sanctioned a credit of ₹3,250 crore to companies owned by the Videocon Group which are in direct violation to The Banking Regulation Act, guidelines by the Reserve Bank of India and the credit policies of banks.
The CBI registered a FIR in January 2019 that charged Kochhar with cheating and criminal conspiracy and for causing loss to ICICI Bank by sanctioning loans to Videocon Group of companies in contravention of the rules and policies of ICICI Bank during the relevant period. These loans given to Videocon Group of companies have turned into Non-Performing Assets (NPA) and thus resulted in wrongful loss to ICICI Bank and wrongful gain to the borrowers and accused persons.
As per central agency, “From June-2009 to October-2011, ICICI Bank had sanctioned six high value loans to various Videocon Group companies. On August 26, 2009, Rupee Term Loan (RTL) of ₹ 300 Crore was sanctioned to Videocon International Electronics Limited (VIEL) in contravention of the rules and policy by the sanctioning committee. Kochhar was one of the members of the sanctioning committee, who in criminal conspiracy to cheat ICICI Bank and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy on the same day dishonetly by abusing her official position sanctioned loans.
Following doctor protest, National Medical Commission may reconsider NEET-PG internship cut off date
After doctors wrote to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare appealing for the extension of the cut-off date to finish MBBS internships, beyond March 31, the National Medical Commission is actively considering the matter.
On January 7, a day after the Post Graduate National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET-PG) date was announced (to be held on March 5), the Federation of Resident Doctors’ Association shot off the letter. Otherwise, this would render nearly 40,000 to 50,000 MBBS students ineligible for the exams, according to FORDA.
“Once they indicate a change we will re-issue the NEET-PG bulletin,” a senior official from the National Board of Examinations (NBE) said. A senior official from the NMC confirmed, “We will not take any step which is detrimental to the future of the MBBS students.”
Delays caused during the last two years of COVID had caused many MBBS students to finish their year-long internship, which they undertook during their fourth year. According to data collated by FORDA from 23 States, the internship culmination dates for the MBBS students were varying from April to November 2023.
“In Bihar for instance, the internships will culminate sometime in August. In Chattisgarh, the internships will end only in November. The students started interning late as the entire health system was busy with pandemic damage control. Most of them were asked to report for hospital postings to fulfil workforce shortage during COVID,” said FORDA president Aviral Mathur.
After the NEET-PG dates were announced, MBBS doctors from across India had written to FORDA requesting the postponement of internship date cut-offs and deferring the NEET-PG exams altogether. “Deferring NEET-PG exams altogether is a double-edged sword. In 2022, NEET-PG was conducted in May, however there was massive chaos that ensued later, and admissions occurred only five months later,” Mathur added. Over a lakh MBBS students were expected to sit for the NEET-PG exams this year.
SC refers Brinda Karat’s plea for hate speech FIR against Anurag Thakur, Pravesh Verma to another bench
The Supreme Court on January 9 referred to another bench a plea filed by CPI(M) leaders Brinda Karat and K.M. Tiwari challenging the trial court’s refusal to direct registration of an FIR against Union Minister Anurag Thakur and his BJP colleague Pravesh Verma for their alleged hate speeches on anti-CAA protest at Shaheen Bagh.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and M.M. Sundresh was informed that a similar matter was pending before another bench. The lawyer for the petitioners informed the top court that a bench headed by Justice K.M. Joseph was hearing a batch of petitions seeking action against hate speeches.
The apex court said it would be better if the case is placed before the same bench. “The matter be listed before the same bench subject to orders of the Honourable Chief Justice,” the bench said. The top court was hearing Karat’s plea challenging the June 13, 2022, order of the Delhi High Court.
The high court had dismissed the plea challenging the trial court’s refusal to direct the registration of an FIR against Thakur and Verma for their alleged hate speeches. The high court had refused to interfere with the trial court’s order and said under the law, the requisite sanction is required to be obtained from the competent authority for the registration of FIR in the present facts.
It had noted that the Delhi Police had conducted a preliminary inquiry in the matter and informed the trial court that prima facie no cognisable offence was made out and that for ordering any investigation, the trial court was required to take cognisance of the facts and evidence before it, which was not permissible without a valid sanction. It was the petitioners’ grievance that at the Rithala rally, Thakur had on January 27, 2020, allegedly egged on the crowd to raise an incendiary slogan after lashing out at anti-CAA protesters.
The Delhi Police had defended the trial court order, saying it rightly held that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with the case and referred to the Supreme Court’s judgments which said that if a judge is saying he does not have jurisdiction, he should not comment on merits and that is the right approach.
In the complaint, Karat and Tiwari had sought lodging of FIRs under various sections, including 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.), 153-B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the IPC.
Holding that the Constitution envisages a secular nation, a bench of Justices Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy had directed Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand to promptly register criminal cases against those making hate speeches without waiting for a complaint to be filed.
In Brief:
Nearly seven months after putting on hold the law on sedition, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a batch of petitions challenging the colonial-era penal law on Wednesday when the Centre is likely to apprise it of the developments, if any, made while re-examining the provision. In a path-breaking order, the top court had on May 11 last year decided to put in abeyance the penal law on sedition till an “appropriate” government forum re-examined it and directed the Centre and states to not register any fresh FIR invoking the offence. A bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha has listed for hearing as many as 12 petitions, including the one filed by the Editors Guild of India, against the law.
Evening Wrap will return tomorrow.
