Spewing venom against other faiths defies purpose of religion: HC

CHENNAI: The Madras high court on Friday came down strongly on religious leaders demeaning other religions while quashing FIRs against evangelist Mohan C Lazarus who tendered an unconditional apology for his remarks against Hindu temples.

“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 noted.

The case, which came up before a single judge bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh, brought in factors 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 religions 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 go by what the leader propagates, “it will only sow seeds of hatred among people across religious faiths.”

The court added that it can

PThe responsibility lies more with persons who are involved in the propagation of religions

JUSTICE N ANAND VENKATESH,

not 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”. “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,” the court warned.

Without taking names, the justice also made an oral observation of 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 repeat such statements.