Need To Separate "Grain From Chaff": Supreme Court On Plea For Christians

The court's order came on a plea filed by Rev. Dr. Peter Machado of National Solidarity Forum, Rev. Vijayesh Lal of Evangelical Fellowship of India, and others claiming violence against the members of the Christian community in the country.

Need To Separate 'Grain From Chaff': Supreme Court On Plea For Christians

Supreme Court told Home Ministry to seek reports from states on alleged attacks on Christians

New Delhi:

Observing that it needs to separate "grain from the chaff" when it came to allegations of attacks on members of the Christian community, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Ministry of Home Affairs to call for reports from Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Bihar and Jharkhand despite opposition from the centre.

The top court said though it believes crime against an individual does not necessarily mean crime against society, but even if 10 per cent of the cases alleged in the PIL is true, then it needs to go to the bottom of the issue.

The Centre told the court it should not entertain the Public Interest Litigation or PIL based on "self-serving reports" as it could have wider ramifications.

"We need to separate grain from the chaff, even though we believe that an attack on individuals does not mean it is an attack on the community. We need to verify the claims of any such incident claimed in the public interest litigation (PIL)," a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli said.

The Centre contended 162 of the cases mentioned in the PIL have been found to be fake on verification at the ground level.

Responding to the contention, the bench said, "This is a PIL and we are starting with a presumption that what is being claimed may be true. We can have a verification exercise and start with at least 4-5 states and ask the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to submit a report after collating the data on what action has been taken on such incidents of violence, status of FIRs and arrests made and whether any charge sheet has been filed in these cases or not." The court directed the chief secretaries of all the eight states to ensure these details are submitted to the MHA.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asserted majority of the alleged cases mentioned in the PIL were found to be false and based on "self-serving articles" published on a web portal upon verification.

He insisted the court should not entertain such PILs and pass orders that will open a Pandora's box and could have wider ramifications.

"First, there was an era when PILs were written on a postcard, then came an era when PILs were filed on the basis of newspaper reports and the courts had taken steps to curb that practice. Now, the third era is that PILs are being filed on the basis of a self-constituted fact-finding committee and reports which are being published on some web portals," he said. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for the petitioners, said in majority of the attacks against the members of the Christian community, there is a pattern, and are being done with the connivance of police authorities.

Mr Mehta dubbed the claims as exaggerated, insisting government verification at the ground level found no such incidents with communal overtones had taken place as was being claimed by the petitioners.

Mr Gonsalves argued that in most cases Christian priests have been charged by the police and attackers have not faced any action.

"In the last one year, more than 700 cases of violence against the members of Christian community have been reported," he said.

Mr Mehta said since none of the affected parties are before the court but the petitioners, who claim to represent their cause, are present, the court should not entertain the plea and instead allow the victims to move the court or lodge a FIR in case of violence against them.

At this point, the bench noted, the victims may not have the means or could not be in a position to lodge a complaint against the perpetrators.

Mr Mehta said if the petitioners can approach the Supreme Court, they surely can provide all possible legal assistance to the victims to help them lodge cases against the perpetrators.

The bench gave two months to the MHA to seek reports from the states.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

.