Posts Tagged ‘feeling’

Whether the complaint made against Lazarus, FIR filed etc., have been stage-managed or really meant for persecuting the rabble riser evangelist who abused and even blasphemed!

November 23, 2019

Whether the complaint made against Lazarus, FIR filed etc., have been stage-managed or really meant for persecuting the rabble riser evangelist who abused and even blasphemed!

Lazarus calling temple as a place of satan The Hindu

Complaint registered based on video circulated in the Social media: Mohan C. Lazarus has been notorious for making anti-Hindu comments during his evangelization discourses. Though, he reportedly makes such tirade in his church, the videos have been in circulation. Evidently, he has contacts with the politicians, as he used to claim and declare that so and so has been Christian, or become Christians, soon he would declare so in the public. About Vaiko, he made such comments. In the same tone and tenor, he was seen declaring that the Hindu gods are satan and so on. Thus, the Hindus, after watching the videos started registering their protest and urging to take legal action against such rabble-rouser. According, the Hindu organizations have lodged complaints with police stations. The case was registered after a video of Mohan preaching went viral on social media[1]. In the video, Mohan, while referring to temples in South India, says[2], “Tamil Nadu has the most number of temples in India. These temples are in the grasp of Satan. The temples in Kumbakonam district are the habitat of devils.”

Lazarus petion filed dismissed- Indian Express

High Court ordered for providing details about the speech made, the place, date etc: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday 10-10-2018, directed the Nagercoil police not to file a charge sheet against evangelist Mohan C. Lazarus until further orders after it was established that the FIR registered against him for his remarks against Hindu gods carried no particulars of place, time or date of the alleged occurrence[3]. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, hearing the plea of Mohan Lazarus, who sought to quash the complaint filed against him, questioned if a case could be booked under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings) after it was alleged that the speech was made in a closed event[4]. The court sought an explanation to ascertain the facts of the event. Immediately, the police and the applicants should have submitted the details to the court, but, obviously, they did not do that. So actually, one cannot divine who helped him or gave room for such lacuna, so that the petitions could be quashed easily.

G K Ilanthiraiyan dismissed the petition against Mohan Lazarus

The media played hype role, instead of pointing out the lacuna: However, the media had been gleefully carried on the news that more complaints were made against the evangelist and so on. The action was taken against him based on three separate complaints lodged against him with three different police stations[5]. In the first instance, BJP functionary R Jaihind Murugesan, 43, of Uthupalayam near Arasur, lodged a complaint against the preacher with the Sulur police[6]. Based on the complaint, Sulur police inspector Thangaraj registered a first information report (FIR) against Mohan C Lazarus under Sections 153 (A) (1) (a) (b) and 295 (A) of the Indian Penal Code[7]. Likewise, the Karumathampatti police registered a case against the Christian preacher under Sections 153 (A) and 295 (A) of the Indian Penal Code based on a complaint lodged by another BJP functionary, whose identity couldn’t be ascertained[8]. In another instance, VHP district deputy secretary R Manoshankar, 35, of Pollachi, lodged a complaint against Mohan Lazarus with the Pollachi west police, who registered a case[9]. Further investigation is on[10].

Lazarus - Judge Anand Venkatesh

How the court gave hint that the speech made in public should be taken cognizance and so on: Justice N Anand Venkatesh[11], while hearing the petition filed by Lazarus seeking to quash the FIR registered based on a complaint by Hindu Munnani functionary Namburajan, observed that, “Any complaint must have certain preliminary requirements to make out an offence. However, the complaint, in this case, does not satisfy the requirements to attract section 295 (A) of IPC (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious beliefs).” He stated that in order to make out a cognizable offence under the above IPC section, the statement should have been made in a public meeting[12]. If the said statement had been uttered in a closed gathering in the nature of a private meeting, it cannot be cited as a cognizable offence under the above section, as the same would imply that no two persons can freely express their ideas or sentiments to each other in fear that they may be punished if it gets published in social media, the judge added. Criticising the Kottar police for filing FIR on a complaint that lacks the most important details as to where, when and on what occasion the alleged statement had been made, the judge directed the police to explain on what basis the FIR was registered by them.

Difference among the IPC sections

Details of IPC Sections 153A, 295 & 295A SECTION 153 A: The purpose of the Section 153 A is to punish persons who indulge in wanton vilification or attacks upon the religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc of any particular group or class or upon the founders and prophets of a religion. The jurisdiction of this Section is widened so as to make promotion of disharmony, enmity or feelings of hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities punishable. Offence on moral turpitude is also covered in this section. The offence is a cognizable offence and the punishment for the same may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. However, the punishment of the offence committed in a place of worship is enhanced up to five years and fine.

Ingredients of Section 153A:

  • The act of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, community or any other group.
  • Acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different groups or castes or communities, if the acts disturb public tranquillity.
  • Acts causing fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community by use of criminal force or violence against them.

IPC and cyberlaw, Defamation law, effects

SECTION 295: Section 295 of the I.P.C makes destruction, damage, or defilement of a place of worship or an object held sacred, with intent to insult the religion of a class of persons, punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine , or with both. This section has been enacted to compel people to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasion or creeds.

Ingredients of Section 295:

  • The accused must do such an act with the intention of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that any class of person is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion.
  • The accused must destroy, damage or defile any place of worship or any object which is held as sacred by any class of persons.

 SECTION 295-A: The object of Section 295-A is to punish deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or the religious beliefs. This section only punishes an aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a class.

Ingredients of Section 295-A:

  • The accused must insult or attempt to insult the religion or religious beliefs of any class of citizens of India.
  • The said insult must be with a deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of the said class of citizens.
  • The said insult must be by words, either spoken or written, by signs or by visible representation or otherwise.
  • The offence under Section 295-A is cognizable and a non-bailable and non-compoundable offence.
  • The police have a power under to arrest a person charged under Section 295-A without a warrant.

However, the police did not arrest him.

IPC and cyberlaw

Lazarus gave a clarification that he made such speech in a pastors conference in 2014: Lazarus, in his petition, said the case of the prosecution was that he had spoken against Hindu gods and referred to them as Satan. He claimed that he did not intend to hurt anyone and the complaint was based on a speech delivered in 2014 at a pastors’ meet in Chennai, which was a closed event. Therefore, how and why the rel hate-speech made in 2014 in Chennai was not noticed and suddenly, it was circulated in 2019 is not known. As it was a private and closed event, as claimed and submitted before the court, how the video suddenly came out in 2014. The source could have been known to him or the persons involved in taking video or the church. As without which, it could not have been made available in Cyberspace. So if at all, anybody wanted to create trouble between two communities, it was the person who uploaded the video first in the internet. Even if it was done for publicity, then, Lazarus is responsible. Thus, instead of investigating in that way, the complaint made, FIR registered etc., were done mechanically, without application of mind or understand the legal provisions.

Mohan Lazarus clarification-1

Mohan Lazarus tactfully clarified that he was talking in a pastors meeting, according to his belief in a closed hall

Mohan Lazarus clarification-2

Mohan Lazarus tactfully clarified that he was talking in a pastors meeting, according to his belief in a closed hall

Lazarus petion filed dismissed- The Hindu

The petition has been dismissed with the provision of appeal: The Nagercoil police had booked him based on a complaint filed by Nambirajan of the Hindu Munnani under Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and Section 295A of the IPC. Hearing in the case has been adjourned to October 24, 2018. Lazarus filed a petition explaining his stand and requesting to quash the FIR and further proceedings[13]. Accordingly, Judge G. K. Ilanthiraiyan allowed the petition filed by him and quashed the FIR filed by the Nagerkoil police[14]. The police has to file the closure of complaint to the applicant and the applicant, if has any grievance, he could approach appropriate court for getting redressal. Earlier, Lazarus also explained his position through a video uploaded as a clarification against the accusations made against him[15]. The whole affair exposed as to how the Hindutw forces have badly handled the case and cut a sorrow figure before the public, in spite of having contingent of lawyers and advocates.

© Vedaprakash

23-11-2019.

Lazarus petion filed dismissed- The Dinamalar

[1] India Today, Christian preacher booked for promoting enmity after video goes viral on social media, Lokpria Vasudevan , Chennai, October 3, 2018; UPDATED: October 3, 2018 18:02 IST

[2] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/christian-preacher-booked-for-promoting-enmity-after-video-goes-viral-on-social-media-1354822-2018-10-03

[3] The Hindu, Explain basis for registering case against evangelist: HC Says FIR against Lazarus lacks details, STAFF REPORTER, MADURAI, OCTOBER 10, 2018 01:03 IST, UPDATED: OCTOBER 10, 2018 01:03 IST

[4] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/explain-basis-for-registering-case-against-evangelist-hc/article25173085.ece

[5] Times of India, Hate speech: Christian preacher booked in Coimbatore, TNN | Updated: Oct 3, 2018, 10:59 IST

[6] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/coimbatore/hate-speech-christian-preacher-booked/articleshow/66046126.cms

[7] TheNewsMinute, 3 cases against evangelist Mohan C Lazarus for ‘promoting enmity between religions’, Priyanka Thirumurthy, Wednesday, October 03, 2018 – 16:18.

[8] https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/3-cases-against-evangelist-mohan-c-lazarus-promoting-enmity-between-religions-89391

[9] The Hindu, More cases filed against evangelist Mohan Lazarus for his remarks against Hindu deities, Madurai bureau, IRUNELVELI, OCTOBER 03, 2018 19:28 IST; UPDATED: OCTOBER 04, 2018 01:36 IST.

[10] https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/case-filed-against-evangelist/article25114037.ece

[11] Indian Express, Madurai Bench slams Nagercoil police for registering FIR with

insufficient details, Published: 10th October 2018 09:30 AM | Last Updated: 10th October 2018 09:30 AM.

[12] https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2018/oct/10/madurai-bench-slams-nagercoil-police-for-registering-fir-with-insufficient-details-1883461.html

[13] The Hindu, HC quashes FIR against Mohan Lazarus, STAFF REPORTERNOVEMBER 22, 2019 21:32 IST, UPDATED: NOVEMBER 22, 2019 21:32 IST.

[14] https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/hc-quashes-fir-against-mohan-lazarus-madurai-nagercoil/article30053507.ece

[15] https://persecutionrelief.org/pr-mohan-c-lazarus-clarifies-about-the-allegation-made-against-him-by-religious-fanatics/