Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Supreme Court
Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Archbishop’s Plea Alleging Hate Speech Against Christians
|The Court said the petitioners were at liberty to file a complaint before the magistrate and, if needed, invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
The Supreme Court today declined to entertain a special leave petition filed by Archbishop Dr. Ashok Babu Chegud seeking action against members of the Shivashakti Foundation for allegedly provoking followers to desecrate the Holy Bible, granting liberty to move the jurisdictional magistrate with a complaint, while observing that in case of inaction, the petitioners can invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
The matter was heard by a Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
Counsel for the Archbishop, referring to Respondent No. 10, the Shivashakti Foundation, submitted, “Respondent No. 10 organization in this matter, in an open telecast, has instigated his followers to urinate on the Holy Bible, thereafter to trample on the Holy Bible.” He further submitted, “There was a conclave which was held on September 1, 2024, where there were a thousand people who gathered. And these people made comments on the dais…on the crucifix, on the cross, and the holy bible.”
Justice Surya Kant asked whether any complaint had been filed. The counsel responded, “I have made a complaint before the DSP, before the SP, and before the local police station also.” To this, Justice Kant remarked, “You know very well you can file a complaint before the court also. The corresponding provision is there. Avail that provision. File a petition or complaint. And if that Court does not respond well, then please go to the High Court.”
Justice Surya Kant said, “So file prosecution.” Counsel replied, “I have, but they have not accepted the same facts.” Justice Jant further said, “If you have filed a prosecution, and if there is any kind of urgency or the desired attention not shown by the Court concerned, please go to the High Court… the High Court is the supervising authority.”
The counsel further stated, “The High Court has very clearly stated that my petition is vague and general.”
Taking note, the Court disposed of the petition, stating, “In view of the liberty granted by the High Court... in view of the order dated 19th March 2025, the petitioners are always at liberty to move an appropriate complaint competition before the jurisdiction of the magistrate. It goes without saying that in the event of no appropriate action in accordance with the law is taken on such complaint, they can invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.”
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in its order, had held, “The allegations made in the present petition are quite vague and general and if at all there is any act which is attributed to the private respondents, which otherwise constitute a criminal offence, it would be open to the petitioners to work out their remedies in accordance with law. The present petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.”
Cause Title: Ashok Babu Chegudi @ Joshua Daniel & Ors. v. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Diary No. 17352-2025)