An NIA court in Bilaspur granted conditional bail to the nuns on Saturday, 2 August, nine days after they were arrested.
Published Aug 02, 2025 | 7:00 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 02, 2025 | 7:00 PM
legal team cordinator for the nuns, alleged that the case is riddled with procedural irregularities that amount to violations of basic human rights.
Synopsis: The Bajrang Dal’s role in the Chhattisgarh incident, intimidating the girls, inspecting luggage, and influencing the police, was emblematic of rising societal bias against Christian minorities. The police, instead of acting neutrally, yielded to mob demands and detained the nuns without concrete evidence.
The arrest of two Keralite nuns in BJP-ruled Chhattisgarh and their release on bail after nine days reflected a growing culture of vigilantism and institutional submission to mob pressure in the country, according to legal experts attached to the Church.
Sisters Vandana Francis and Preeta Mary of the Order of the Assisi Sisters of Mary Immaculate were arrested at Chhattigarh’s Durg railway station on 25 July after pro-Hindu Bajrang Dal activists accused them of attempting to take away three women, including a tribal, to Agra for “forced conversion to Christianity”.
Besides the nuns, a tribesman, Sukaman Mandavi, was also arrested. They have been charged with Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for trafficking and under Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Religious Freedom Act, 1968.
The arrests created a political storm in Kerala, and MPs from the state raised the issue in Parliament, forcing Home Minister Amit Shah’s intervention. The nuns were arrested even as the BJP in Kerala has been reaching out to Christians.
A special NIA court in Chhattisgarh’s Bilaspur granted conditional bail to the nuns on Friday, 2 August, nine days after their arrest based on the Bajrang Dal’s accusation.
Advocate Rajith Davis, lawyer for the Thrissur Archdiocese and a key counsel in a similar trafficking case in Kerala, told South First that the arrest of two nuns exemplified a serious misuse of law driven by communal bias and political interference.
He said the case reflected a larger pattern of criminalising Christian missionaries on baseless grounds.
The apprehension nuns, who were unjustly charged with human trafficking and coerced religious conversion, was influenced by external pressure from Bajrang Dal militants and a lack of procedural clarity.
Despite no evidence of coercion or exploitation, the matter was elevated to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), bypassing the local sessions court. Adv Davis stated that it was a clear attempt to politicise a non-criminal issue and delay justice, an alarming misuse of national institutions against a minority group.
In Chhattisgarh, railway police detained the nuns after Bajrang Dal members alleged they were trafficking women for conversion. However, the girls had travelled voluntarily, with parental permission, to work in convents. No criminal elements such as coercion or exploitation were evident.
Still, the case was transferred to the NIA, an agency meant for investigating terrorism and serious organised crime under the NIA Act, 2008. Davis termed it irrational and deliberate, aimed at prolonging the process and stalling justice, rather than seeking truth.
Adv. Davis pointed to a similar case he had handled in Thrissur, Kerala, in 2022, where two nuns and three others were charged under Sections 370(1), (2), (5) read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly trafficking minor girls from Jharkhand for convent work.
The case (SC 719/2022) was decided on 26 July 2025 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, who acquitted all the accused due to lack of evidence.
The court found no evidence of coercion, exploitation, or abuse of power. The girls had travelled with full knowledge and consent of their parents, and there was no deception involved.
The prosecution failed to establish even a prima facie case. Relying on precedents like Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010) and Karan Talwar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2024), the court ruled that the essential ingredients of trafficking were absent and discharged the accused under Section 227 of the CrPC.
Adv Davis said the Chhattisgarh case mirrored the Thrissur case in almost every aspect: voluntary travel, parental consent, no evidence of trafficking.
Had this case also gone before a sessions court instead of the NIA, he felt that the nuns would have been acquitted earlier. The Thrissur verdict, he said, stands as clear judicial proof that such allegations fall apart under scrutiny.
Calling it a ”disturbing trend,” Adv Davis criticised the growing culture of vigilantism and institutional submission to mob pressure. He said the Bajrang Dal’s role in the Chhattisgarh incident, intimidating the girls, inspecting luggage, and influencing the police, was emblematic of rising societal bias against Christian minorities.
The police, instead of acting neutrally, yielded to mob demands and detained the nuns without concrete evidence, he noted.
He also condemned the transfer of the case to the NIA, stating that the agency’s mandate under the NIA Act did not cover such matters.
This not only undermined the agency’s credibility but also violated constitutional principles of due process and fair trial. Davis stressed that the NIA’s unjustified involvement appeared to be a tactic to sensationalise and politically weaponise a local incident.
He warned that the implications would go beyond just two individuals.
”This is not just an attack on two nuns, but on an entire community’s dignity,” Adv Davis said. The repeated targeting of Christian workers, particularly nuns known for their compassion and service, was creating fear and insecurity among minorities. He said such actions threatened India’s legal foundations and pluralist values.
Adv Davis urged civil society to recognise the injustice and resist the dangerous drift toward communalised law enforcement and state overreach.
Advocate Sister Helen, the legal coordinator in the Chhattisgarh case, strongly criticised what she called ”serious procedural lapses” and ”human rights violations” in the case.
Speaking to South First, Sister Helen said the bail plea was earlier denied not on merit but due to confusion and legal ambiguity.
”The sessions court lacked clarity over its jurisdiction, which is why the matter was forwarded to the NIA court. But the problem is that certain sections under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) have no clear provisions, and the case should ideally be evaluated under the old IPC,” she said.
These lapses have resulted in the continued judicial custody of the nuns, which she termed a ”blatant violation of constitutional rights”.
Sister Helen also questioned the jurisdictional basis of the trial. ”The NIA special judge has authority only in Central government-notified districts, and Bilaspur is one of them. That’s why the case was shifted from Durg.”
She pointed to a viral video showing Bajrang Dal activist Jyoti Sharma allegedly hurling abuses at the nuns at Durg railway station, where no police were present.
”Who authorised them to detain citizens? We can’t subject someone to mental torture based on mere suspicion,” Sister Helen said, adding that such vigilantism undermined the rule of law.
She also referenced a recent acquittal of nuns in a similar case in Kerala’s Thrissur and said the current legal limbo only benefits those attempting to create loopholes.
”The women in question had Aadhaar cards and valid train tickets. Are such documents meaningless in India now? how can a 22 and 19 year old can be considered minors, as alleged by the Bajrang Dal?”
Sister Helen further noted that the bail application had included health concerns and a request to shift the nuns to a district hospital, but it was rejected without proper consideration.
”It turned into a mob trial. Bail is a constitutional right, and we cannot let citizens suffer just because of procedural confusion,” she said.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
