Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has issued notice in a plea filed by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) in a special leave petition challenging the anticipatory bail granted to a Catholic priest and nun in case of forceful conversion at a child care home. It was revealed upon inspection by Chairman of NCPCR, Priyank Kanungo that allegedly, Hindu children were being forced to read the Bible and visit church and were not being allowed to celebrate Diwali, instead, were being forced to recite Christian prayers in Asha Kiran Institute.
 
A bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra  issued notice in the petition filed by Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi, seeking a stay on the high court court order granting both accused anticipatory bail. It took up the case with a plea, also filed by the state government, challenging the said order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It is the case of the Commission that the bails have been granted on a “hyper technical” ground that the complaint under the MP Freedom of Religion Act was not filed by person converted or person aggrieved or against whom attempt is made for conversion or by their relatives or blood relatives as is provided u/s 4, but was filed suo motu by the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Kanungo.
 
Anticipatory bails were granted to Jerald Alameda, Arch bishop of Roman Catholic Church, Diocese of .Jabalpur and District Katni and Liji Joseph, Sister of Convent Asha Kiran Institute on June 19, 2023 in FIR concerning offences related to Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [Cruelty to child punishment] and Sections 3 [Prohibition of unlawful conversions from one religion to another] and Section 5 [Punishment for contravention of provisions of section 3], M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 2021.
 
It is the case of the NCPCR before Supreme Court that even though it was not a party in the instant case before the High Court, yet it was aggrieved greatly by the grant of anticipatory bails to the appellants.
“….considering the statutory duty of the Petitioner herein is to monitor interest of children and act to protect the rights of children whenever needed, as well as granting relief on technical grounds even when the well-being of children is involved,” said the commission.
 
The petition has also put forth a substantial question of law in its averments that it has sought the court’s intervention to be decided – related to the powers and duties of the NCPCR.
“It is humbly submitted that the NCPCR also has the statutory authority to take suo moto action against, and inspect any person or organisation which violates the rights of children and take further action to prevent such transgressions from taking place, which includes approaching the police and filing a complaint. Therefore, the complaint made by the Chairperson, NCPCR, after inspection is justified in the eyes of law and hence the impugned Order is legally unjustified and deserves the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court”.
 
In this regard, it has pointed out that the Commission has been empowered to take suo motu action which involves violation and deprivation of rights of children.

Case Title: NCPCR Vs. Jerald Almeda & Anr. | State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jerald Almeda & Anr.