[ad_1]
India is governed by the rule of law and therefore, even if something is done on humanitarian grounds, it must be done in accordance with the law, as noted recently by the Madras High Court. “If any violation is noticed, that person should face prosecution,” said the High Commissioner.
This observation was made by a single panel of Judge G. Ilangovan in a petition filed by Reverend Gideon Jacob seeking direction to set aside criminal proceedings against him on allegations of human trafficking.
Allegedly directors of Good Shepherd Evangelical Mission Private Limited, the priest and his wife were involved in human trafficking and the incarceration of underage girls.
Under the company operates an orphanage, Mose Ministries Home, which claims to provide shelter for abandoned/orphan girls.
During several inspections, although everything seemed fine in the orphanage early on, the county welfare department later found some inconsistencies.
In 2015, the priest was ordered by the Ministry of Social Welfare to hand over children under the age of 18 immediately.
The priest challenged the order to the Supreme Court. However, in the meantime, a PIA case was filed by Change India before the Supreme Court, seeking directions to the CBI to investigate the allegations of human trafficking and confinement of 89 girls by the petitioner.
The accused had allegedly procured 125 underage girls from in and around Usilambati in Madurai by deceiving their parents/guardians with false promises of providing them with good education, facilities and food, but out of these, only 89 girls are now available. The whereabouts of the other 35 girls were not known.
It has also been alleged that some of the missing girls were taken abroad and held by the Germans. Furthermore, many of these girls were allegedly forced to convert to Christianity.
Then, in 2016, a case against Mose Ministries and its employees including Gideon Jacob was registered by the CBI for offenses under section 120-B, r/w 361, 368 and 201 IPC, section 34 r/w 33 and 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and Section 20 r/w 6 of the Tamil Nadu Women and Children Homes and Homes (Regulation) Act, 2014.
The prosecution’s case was that the Ministry of Interior had not registered to receive the girls under the legal provisions of the applicable laws. Allegations of trafficking, as well as ill-treatment of female inmates, were also leveled against the priest and other defendants.
Before the Supreme Court, the accused priest’s lawyer argued that the case was nothing more than a crucifixion of a righteous Samaritan.
He claimed that the priest wanted to save girls from Usilambati district from fetal killing. Therefore, he took them under his care and the alleged offenses against the priest were not even attracted.
However, the Supreme Court held that not all, but only a few, criminal judgments were drawn into the matter.
Therefore, the High Commissioner said that other penal provisions must be properly drafted and a trial must take place.
Accordingly, while noting that “it all began in good faith, but fell back halfway,” the court denied the priest’s petition.
[ad_2]
