The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government on priest Vineet Vincent Pereira's plea. (File Photo)
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the proceedings in a criminal case against a Christian priest for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by proclaiming in prayer meets that “there is only one religion which is Christian”.
Issuing notice to the Uttar Pradesh government on the plea by the priest, Vineet Vincent Pereira alias Vineet Vinicent Paresh, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ordered that the trial be stayed in the meanwhile.
Pereira was booked under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and a chargesheet was filed against him on February 19, 2024. Subsequently, on May 18, 2024, a judicial magistrate court took cognisance of the chargesheet. Two years later, on March 18, 2026, the Allahabad High Court dismissed his application challenging the case.
“By bare perusal of the narrations made in the FIR wherein it has been mentioned that in his prayer meet, applicant frequently states that there is only one religion which is Christian and also hurts the sentiments of a particular religion i.e. Hindu, whereas India is a land where people of all faiths and beliefs in secular state as defined by Constitution of India, live together, therefore, it is wrong for any religion to claim that it is the only true religion as it implies a disparagement of other faiths,” the high court said.
“The opening line of the said provision itself speaks about deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizen by insulting its religion or religious faith, meaning thereby, the act of the applicant comes under the ambit of Section 295-A IPC and as such, at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie, no case is made,” the high court added.
Section 295A of the IPC deals with deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. It says that “whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three years], or with fine, or with both.”
Periera contended that he was falsely implicated in the case and that he had not indulged in illegal conversion or spoken against other religions.
The high court, however, said this would require appreciation of evidence and that at the stage of taking cognisance, it would only see if a prima facie case is made out.
“At the stage of taking cognisance, a court’s primary focus is to determine if a prima facie case exists, meaning whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an offence has been committed, and not to delve into the merits of the case or the evidence,” the high court said.
