U.P. anti-conversion law aimed at maintaining public order: HC
In a recent judgment, the bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar made these observations while rejecting a plea to cancel an FIR against four people accused under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021.
The Allahabad high court has observed that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 has been enacted, aimed at maintaining public order, moral integrity, and health in alignment with Article 25 of the Constitution.
The court also said that the Constitution of India gives every citizen the right to freely follow and spread their religion, but it does not support forced or fraudulent conversions.
In a recent judgment, the bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar made these observations while rejecting a plea to cancel an FIR against four people accused under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021.
According to the complaint, the accused tried to convert people to Christianity by offering money and free medical care. The court refused to cancel the case, stating that the charges were serious and valid enough for police investigation.
The court said, “The presumption that one religion is inherently superior to other clearly presupposes the moral and spiritual superiority of one religion over another. Such notion is fundamentally antithetical to the idea of secularism. Indian secularism is rooted in the principle of equal respect for all religions. The State neither identify with nor favour any religion, but instead must maintain a principled equidistant from all religions and faith.”
Commenting on the 2021 law brought by the Uttar Pradesh government, the court noted, “The primary object of the Act is to prohibit conversions from one religion to another that are carried out through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, fraudulent means, or marriage for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion. By targeting such methods, the law seeks to prevent exploitation and manipulation that could have broader destabilising effects on social harmony, besides disruption of law and order.”
The court also held, “India’s constitutional framework guarantees the right to religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. This Article confers upon every person the fundamental right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. The use of the word “freely” in Article 25 underscores the voluntary nature of religious belief and expression.”
The bench also said, “However, the Constitution does not endorse forced or fraudulent conversions, nor does it shield coercive or deceptive practices under the guise of religious propagation.”
It further maintained that though Article 25(1) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, this right is expressly subject to public order, morality, and health, which provides a constitutional foundation for regulating religious conversions that are procured through coercion, misrepresentation, or undue influence.
It maintained that these limitations are essential in ensuring that the exercise of religious freedom does not disrupt the societal fabric or endanger individual and communal well-being.
The court also looked into a legal issue as to whether a police officer (SHO) can be considered an “aggrieved person” under Section 4 of the 2021 Act. This section generally allows only the victim or close relatives to file a complaint. The bench clarified that the SHO can file such FIRs because the law must be read with the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) provisions that allow the police to act in cognizable offences.
