The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the State of Jharkhand to produce its verification report in response to a petition seeking orders to cease alleged attacks on Christians.
A bench comprised of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala directed the State of Jharkhand to file its verification report regarding the violence alleged in the petition seeking orders to stop alleged attacks on Christians, priests, and Christian institutions across the country.
Previously, the bench asked the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to acquire verification reports from eight states: Bihar, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh.
The Apex court considered that the compiled reports would help it form an opinion on states’ compliance with the instructions imposed in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India against mob violence.
However, the bench was informed that, with the exception of Jharkhand, all states have filed the status report.
“The State of Jharkhand shall comply with the judgment within a period of two weeks,” the CJI stated.
Dr. Peter Machado, Archbishop of Bangalore Diocese, filed the PIL with the National Solidarity Forum and the Evangelical Fellowship of India (EFI).
According to the petition, the current PIL was submitted in response to “sinister manifestations of violence” and “targeted hate speech” directed at the country’s Christian community by vigilante groups and members of right-wing organisations. It claims that such violence is on the rise as a result of the State’s failure to safeguard its own population.
The petition claims that the Central and State Governments, as well as other State machineries, have failed to take immediate and necessary action against groups that have perpetrated widespread violence and hate speech against the Christian community, including attacks on places of worship and other institutions run by them.
The Union Government has submitted a counter-affidavit claiming that the petitioners’ assertion of “Christian persecution” in India is incorrect and that they relied on biassed and one-sided reports.
The petitioners, according to the Union, have projected certain situations stemming from personal conflicts as communal attacks.
