The Supreme Court on Tuesday expunged two controversial sentences from its ruling on the killings of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two minor sons, which had upheld the life imprisonment for Bajrang Dal activist Dara Singh and his accomplice.Global council of Indian Christians(GCIC) welcomes the decision of the honourable judges to Suo Mottu to expunge the remarks liable to be mis used by the the bigots with ulterior motives
GCIC also expresses its deep appreciation of the civil society and media for the whole hearted support extended to the peaceloving Christians,after the staines verdict
The supreme court of India’s rare action of expunging its own remarks, which it called a clarification, came in the The court's rare action of expunging its own remarks, which it called a clarification, came in the wake of criticism in the media and by Christian organisations against reference to conversion. Dara Singh and his accomplice Mahendra Hembram, convicted for burning alive the Australian missionary and his two minor sons in January 1999, had on January 21 escaped death penalty with the Supreme Court ruling that the crime was not 'rarest of rare' and upheld the life sentence awarded to the duo by the Orissa High Court. GCIC had approached the chief Justice of India and his companion judges against the reference to conversion. Dara Singh and his accomplice Mahendra Hembram, convicted for burning alive the Australian missionary and his two minor sons in January 1999, had on January 21 escaped death penalty with the Supreme Court ruling that the crime was not 'rarest of rare' and upheld the life sentence awarded to the duo by the Orissa High Court

The original para in this context had read: 'In the case on hand, though Graham Staines and his two minor sons were burnt to death while they were sleeping inside a station wagon at Manoharpur, the intention was to teach a lesson to Graham Staines about his religious activities, namely, converting
poor tribals to Christianity.' The other replaced para read, 'There is no justification for interfering in someone's religious belief by any means.'