Kandhamal eyewitness kidnapped. Advocates & police intervene *Gujarat HC restores Christian’s marriage license

Orissa, March 28, 2012: Mr. Saira Nayak uncle of the informant was kidnapped by the accused after depositing the evident before Fast Tract Court II on 27th March 2012.

The Case had been posted for Evidence in (FTC-2) Phulbani and trial was going on. The Case is bearing No. ST-16/12, GR-148/2008, G.Udayagiri P.S case no- 57/08. The Case is between Mr. Keshab Nayak (State) Vs Susant Pradhan (Ex-Samaranch of Badimunda Panchat) & 27 others members.  It is the house burning   case of village Mahaguda, under G. Udayagiri Police Station. The offence charged against accused U/s 147/148/427/379/295/436/506/149 IPC.

There were five public witnesses (PW) who examined in this case. Primarily 1.Keshab Nayak 2.Tanuja Nayak 3.Deepak Nayak 4.Philmina Nayak  and  5.Sasira Nayak deposited the evidence before the  court.

After the deposition and cross examination  the witnesses  were waiting to get their  T.A & D.A (BATA) from the court the   accused persons threatened to the informant  and charged them  why did they said before the court. On their way back they will be killed.  The accused also gave threat that when they will be back to home they will face serious consequences.

After some times at about 3.00 P.M Mr. Saira Nayak, uncle of the informant from was kidnapped from court premise.  Hearing the incident the matter was reported to the Additional District Judge (ADJFTC-2)
but it was no use, the judge said wait.

At that time all the witnesses were feeling insecurity, worried & fear due to delay of the assurance. Finding no way the informant reported the matter in written   to the Police In charge, Town Thana, Phulbani.

After the intervention of the Advocates and Police, Kandhamal town the witness Sasira Nayak was found out and rescued. Due to threat of life, the informant and his uncle did not want go for the case. However, the police left the free to the hijacker.

The continuous support in the grass root level is need of the hour.

– fwd: adv. dibyasingh pasrichha

Gujarat High Court restored the marriage license of a Christian

Gujarat, March 27, 2012: The Gujarat High Court, in a significant judgment, restored the marriage license of a Christian, which had been revoked by the Narendra Modi government after they had invoked the Freedom of Religion Act 2003 to enforce the same. Justice S.R. Brahmbhatt’s order in the case will have wide ranging ramifications and will also serve as a precedent.

Many Christian activists have complained that that the Gujarat government was using the Freedom of Religion Act to prevent conversions arising out of inter-religious marriages. The state chapter of the All India Christian Council (aicc) assisted the petitioner, Subashchandra Parmar of Nadiad, Kheda District, in his legal battle against the order of the State of Gujarat, through its law secretary. The aicc welcomes Justice Brahmbhatt’s order since it implies that Christians can get married with persons of their choice, without faith restrictions.

The petitioner, Mr. Subashchandra Parmar, was appointed as Marriage Registrar in 1999 by the government of Gujarat as a licensee under the Indian Christian Marriage (ICM) Act 1872. In discharge of his duty, in 2009 he performed the marriage ceremony between a Christian, Mr. Pinakin Macwan and Ms. Vishrutiben Shukla, in the presence of Kailashben Shukla, the girl’s mother who signed the registrar as witness. Ms. Vishruti was married to the Christian having not changed her faith nor having converted to Christianity, as is permitted under Section 4 of the ICM Act.

After more than a year of the marriage being solemnized, in October 2010, Anilkumar Sukhla, the girl’s father, under rather mysterious circumstances, approached the government to declare the marriage as null and void, as the girl had not converted. He claimed this was required under the infamous Freedom of Religion Act 2003, which seeks to “regulate” conversions. In 2011, the government not only cancelled Subashchandra Parmar’s license to conduct marriages, through M. J. Parashar, the deputy law secretary’s order, but also launched criminal proceedings against him.

Mr. Samson Christian, aicc national secretary said “The draconian anti-conversion law in Gujarat is even more persecuting, compared to the other six states, where such legislation curbing religious liberty, have been passed. Unlike in other states, in Gujarat, under the Freedom of Religion Act 2003, one has to give a month’s notice and seek permission to convert from one faith to another. Our experience has shown that the moment an application is made, Hindutva forces come down heavily on the person and the family concerned, forcing them to reconsider their decision or face the consequences.” He pointed out that in other states, mere intimation of conversion was sufficient, while in Gujarat, this was not so.

In the case where Mr. Subashchandra Parmar solemnized the marriage, it was under the ICM Act, where it is possible for one to get married without converting and hence the petition challenged the government order and demanded for the restoration of the marriage registrar’s license. Justice Brahmbhatt, in his order, noted that the government should have made proper investigations before cancelling the license. There was also no proof that Ms. Vishrutiben Shukla was converted against her will. Further, the judge noted that the show cause notice by the government was without jurisdiction and also without proper application of mind by the concerned authority. “The petitioner was unnecessarily compelled to come to the court, as cancelling his license is not justified at all,” Justice Brahmbhatt added.

Finally, in the judgment in favour of Mr. Subashchandra Parmar, the judge quashed the government order and set it aside; reviving the license and no cost to the petitioner was awarded. Mr. Samson Christian of the aicc said that the NGO would now move for quashing the FIR filed against the petitioner in the criminal case, which is now pending. The aicc would also work towards getting the month’s notice removed from the Freedom of Religion Act and is considering legal opinion in the matter.