Jurisdictional Limbo: Court Cites NIA Act, Denies Bail Hearing for Nuns in Trafficking Case

DURG, CHHATTISGARH – A sessions court in Durg has placed two Kerala-based nuns and another individual, arrested on contentious allegations of human trafficking and forced religious conversion, in a state of procedural uncertainty. The court disposed of their bail applications, declining to hear the matter on its merits and citing a lack of jurisdiction. The ruling, which hinges on the applicability of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, means the accused will remain in judicial custody as their legal team scrambles to navigate a complex and politically charged legal landscape.

The case of Sr Preethi Mary, Sr Vandana Francis, and Sukaman Mandavi has rapidly escalated from a railway station arrest to a national flashpoint, raising critical questions about statutory interpretation, the jurisdiction of special courts under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and the role of non-state actors in initiating criminal proceedings.

The Jurisdictional Hurdle: An NIA Court Matter?

On Wednesday, Additional Sessions Judge Anish Dubey of the Durg Sessions Court delivered a terse but impactful order. He ruled that the court was not empowered to adjudicate the bail plea due to the nature of the offences alleged. The central issue is the invocation of Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which pertains to the "trafficking of a person."

The court's reasoning, as articulated by defence lawyers and court observers, connects this new provision to its predecessor, Section 370 of the now-repealed Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 370 IPC is listed as a "Scheduled Offence" under Section 2(1)(g) of the NIA Act. Consequently, legal proceedings for such offences are designated to be heard by Special Courts established under Section 11 of the NIA Act. In Chhattisgarh, the designated NIA court for the division is located in Bilaspur.

"The judge said in one line that he does not have the authority to listen to the bail application because this [matter] comes under the NIA Act and the NIA court is in Bilaspur," explained Ravi Shankar Singh, secretary of the Durg Advocates Association.

Defence counsel Rajkumar Tiwari clarified the court's procedural action: "The bail has been disposed of as the court observed that section 143 (trafficking of a person) is triable by an NIA court and this court does not have jurisdiction."

This decision has effectively stalled the standard bail process. The Durg court has directed the police to notify the central government within 15 days to facilitate a decision on whether the case will be formally transferred to the NIA court. Until then, the accused remain in judicial custody, caught between jurisdictions. The defence team now faces a critical choice: either file a fresh bail application before the NIA court in Bilaspur or challenge the jurisdictional quagmire directly by filing a writ petition in the Chhattisgarh High Court. Reports indicate they are preparing to approach the High Court, with a Supreme Court advocate expected to represent them.

Contested Facts and Allegations of Coercion

The legal battle over jurisdiction unfolds against a backdrop of sharply conflicting factual narratives. The nuns and Mandavi were arrested on July 25 by the Government Railway Police (GRP) at Durg railway station. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by a local Bajrang Dal functionary, who alleged the trio was trafficking and forcibly converting three young tribal women from Narayanpur district. They were booked under BNS Section 143 and Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act.

However, this official version has been dramatically contradicted by one of the alleged victims. In a statement to the press, 21-year-old Kamleshwari Pradhan asserted that she and the other women were traveling to Agra and then Bhopal voluntarily, with their parents' full consent, for employment at a Christian hospital. She claimed they were promised a monthly salary of ₹10,000 with accommodation.

Crucially, Pradhan has alleged that she was threatened and assaulted by Bajrang Dal activists at the railway station and later at the police station to compel her to provide a false statement against the nuns.

"The railway police then arrived and we were taken to the (GRP) police station where a woman... slapped me and threatened me to change my statement," Pradhan claimed. "She told me to say I was taken by force. She said if I didn't, my brother would be jailed and beaten up."

Pradhan also refuted the allegation of religious conversion, stating her family had voluntarily followed Christianity for four to five years after her mother's health improved following attendance at a prayer meeting. This testimony directly challenges the mens rea and actus reus of both the trafficking and unlawful conversion charges, suggesting the entire case is built on a foundation of misrepresentation and coercion.

The defence has consistently argued that the FIR is "quashable," being based on "mere suspicion" without any preliminary inquiry by the GRP. The Bajrang Dal has denied all allegations of threats or assault.

Broader Legal and Political Implications

The case has become a focal point for political debate, with opposition parties like the Congress and CPI(M) condemning the arrests as an attack on minority communities. Senior CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat, after meeting the nuns in jail, called the case "unconstitutional and illegal" and a "fabricated" effort to advance a political agenda. Former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel described it as "the politics of polarisation."

For the legal community, the case serves as a crucial, real-time test of the interplay between the new BNS and existing special statutes. The automatic triggering of NIA court jurisdiction for trafficking allegations, even when the facts are heavily disputed and initiated by a private complaint, highlights a significant procedural challenge. It demonstrates how invoking certain sections can move a case from a local court to a special federal court, delaying access to fundamental remedies like bail and increasing the legal burden on the accused.

The Durg court's decision, while procedurally sound based on a plain reading of the NIA Act, underscores the profound impact of legislative scheduling on the administration of criminal justice. The outcome of the defence's next move—whether at the NIA court or the High Court—will be closely watched, as it could set a precedent for how such jurisdictional conflicts are resolved under India's new criminal law regime.