Introduction:

In the case involving four individuals accused under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021, the Allahabad High Court has rendered a significant ruling upholding the registration of the FIR against them. The petitioners sought quashing of the said FIR, which alleged that they were engaged in proselytisation by inducement, promising monetary benefits and free medical treatment to lure individuals into adopting Christianity. The single-judge bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar dismissed their plea, interpreting Article 25 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the 2021 Act in a comprehensive and purposive manner, and ruled in favour of maintaining the sanctity and enforceability of the said statute.

Arguments of both sides:

The petitioners, in this case, approached the High Court with a plea to quash the FIR lodged against them under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021, contending that the complainant—being the Station House Officer (SHO)—did not fall within the ambit of the term “aggrieved person” as stipulated under Section 4 of the said Act. They argued that only a victim or close relatives, as defined under the Act, are legally empowered to lodge such a complaint and that the registration of the FIR by the SHO rendered the entire proceeding void ab initio. They also denied the allegations mentioned in the FIR, asserting that there was no coercion or fraud in their actions, and maintained that their religious propagation was within the bounds of their fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees every individual the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion. The defence emphasised that criminalisation of voluntary religious conversion violates the tenets of religious liberty and is a misuse of penal law.

On the other hand, the State contended that the FIR was lawfully registered as the accused were allegedly engaging in inducement-based conversion by offering monetary benefits and free healthcare facilities. The State emphasised that such actions constituted cognizable offences under the 2021 Act, which aims to protect citizens from coercive, fraudulent, and manipulative conversion practices. In defending the SHO’s authority to lodge the FIR, the State placed reliance on a purposive interpretation of Section 4, arguing that its language should be harmoniously read with the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), particularly Sections 173 and 175, which govern cognizable offences and empower the police to take action.

Judgement:

The High Court, in its 12-page verdict, gave significant weight to the spirit and intent of the Constitution and the statutory law. Justice Vinod Diwakar held that Article 25(1) guarantees the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, but that this right is subject to public order, morality, and health. The Court clarified that religious freedom does not include the freedom to coerce, mislead, or manipulate individuals into converting to another religion. It stressed that the inclusion of the word “freely” in Article 25 implies voluntariness and informed consent in matters of faith. The Court observed that forced or fraudulent conversions fundamentally violate the constitutional principle of individual autonomy in matters of conscience. It further held that the 2021 Act was enacted to uphold public order and ensure that religious conversions occur without the shadow of compulsion or deceit. Addressing the core issue of whether the SHO could be considered an “aggrieved person” under Section 4 of the Act, the bench adopted a purposive and harmonious interpretation, aligning the statute with constitutional values and procedural fairness. The Court declared that the role of the police in preserving public order and preventing cognizable offences grants them the authority to initiate investigations, especially when the alleged act threatens communal harmony or violates statutory mandates. The Court highlighted that a narrow reading of “any aggrieved person” would defeat the very purpose of the legislation and make it practically unworkable. To bolster its interpretation, the bench referred to the amended provisions of the 2024 Act, which substituted the term “any aggrieved person” with “any person,” thus broadening the scope of individuals who can lodge complaints under the 2021 Act. The Court ruled that this amendment is clarificatory and procedural and should be retrospectively applied to pending cases. It affirmed that this approach aligns with the principle that procedural amendments apply to ongoing proceedings unless expressly excluded. The Court’s interpretation was guided by the need to ensure that the statute does not become redundant and continues to serve its intended purpose of regulating religious conversions achieved through illegitimate means. Notably, the Court also offered a broader philosophical reflection on Indian secularism, stating that the belief in the superiority of one religion over another runs counter to the foundational values of the Constitution. Indian secularism, the bench held, rests on the principle of equal respect and non-preferential treatment for all religions, and the State must maintain a principled equidistance from all faiths. This commentary reinforced the Court’s stance that religious propagation must not veer into coercion or denigration of other faiths. In dismissing the quashing petition, the Court concluded that the allegations in the FIR constituted a prima facie cognizable offence and justified the initiation of criminal proceedings. The Court refused to interfere at the investigative stage, ruling that the petitioners would have ample opportunity to defend themselves during the trial. The judgment not only upheld the legislative intent of the 2021 and 2024 Acts but also established judicial endorsement for the procedural mechanisms therein. Ultimately, the Court’s decision reaffirmed that religious freedom in India, while fundamental, is not absolute and must be exercised within the boundaries defined by the Constitution to prevent social disruption and ensure communal harmony.