MADURAI: An evangelist cannot anger the religious belief of others and still claim immunity from the face of a criminal case because it intentionally insults the feelings of other people, said Madras High Court.
Justice Graminathan, distinguishes the hard views of the evangelist about religious beliefs, from the same view expressed by a rationalist or reformist or satirism, said the shield of fundamental rights guaranteed below article 19 (1) (a) will only be available for rationalists or academics or satire.
“We need Charles Darwin, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Narendra Dabholkar, MM Kalurgi and many others in public life and discourse.
Dr.
Abraham T Kovoor, who wrote the book” Begone Godmen! Meeting spiritual fraud “, cannot be said to have been angry with the belief of Hinduism.
He speaks as rationalist.
The fact that he belongs to Christianity is totally irrelevant.
When comedian stand-up Munawar Faruqui or Alexander Babu appeared on stage, they train fundamental rights They to make fun of others.
Again, their religious identity is irrelevant.
Here, “Who?” And where? ” Important test.
Part 295A IPC cannot be called in such cases because of the completely non-existent elements.
The people concerned voiced their opinions or gave ventilation to their expressions in their capacity as a satirism, “said the Swaminathan judge.
The judge was conducting observations while hearing the petition from the Priest Parish Fr P George Perai, who was ordered to refer to Bhuma Devi and Bharat Eye As a source of infection and dirt.
Evangelers wanted a court to cancel the wall.
Judge Swaminathan canceled accusations such as criminal intimidation against the criminal, but held that part of the 295A IPC would apply because an evangelist like he could not claim the privileges available for neutral commentators.
“He Cannot insult or anger the religion of others or their religious beliefs and still claim the immunity of the application of the IPC 295A section.
This is because he looks at other religions as voters to be hunted.
He cannot be called a commentator who is not interested or neutral, “said the judge.
Quoting Newton’s Third Law – Every action has an equal and opposite reaction – Swaminathan judge said:” The state cannot remain a mute audience in such situations.
To uphold the sanctity of the constitution and maintain public order, strong legal arms must go down a lot to those who try to disrupt peace and friendship together.
“When signing, the Swaminathan judge said he was convinced that on the day of judgment, God would rebuke George Ponnaain because he had taken action that was not Christianized And another while participating in a meeting at Arumanai in the district on July 18, 2021.
He also called Bharat Eyes and Bhuma Devi in ​​the most offensive terms.