Rajesh Pandey
While denying bail to a person accused of facilitating conversion, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Constitution of India grants citizens right to freely profess, practice and propagate their religion but it does not allow any citizen to convert any citizen from one religion to another.
Rejecting bail application of one Shriniwas Rav Nayak of Mahrajganj, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal further opined that the individual right to freedom of conscience, as guaranteed by the Constitution, ensures that every person has the liberty to choose, practice, and express their religious beliefs. However, this personal freedom does not extend to a collective right to proselytise, which means attempting to convert others to one’s religion.
“The right to religious freedom belongs equally to the person converting and the individual sought to be converted,” the court added. The applicant – Nayak was booked under sections 3/5 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh prohibition of unlawful conversion of religion Act, 2021.
As per the allegations, on February 15, 2024, the informant was invited to co-accused Vishwanath’s house, where many villagers, mostly from the scheduled castes community had gathered. Vishwanath’s brother Brijlal, the applicant, and Ravindra were also present at Vishwanath’s house. They urged the informant to leave Hinduism and convert to Christianity, promising relief from pain and an improved life. While some villagers accepted Christianity and began praying. The informant escaped and reported the incident to the police.
The counsel for the applicant too the plea that the applicant had no connection with the alleged conversion and that he was a domestic help of one of the co-accused, a resident of Andhra Pradesh and had been falsely roped in in the instant case. It was also contended that no person who had converted to Christianity came forward to lodge a complaint.
On the other hand, the state counsel submitted that a case under the anti-conversion Act of 2021 was made out against the applicant, a Andhra Pradesh resident.
He stated that the applicant came to the place in question, Maharajganj, where the conversion was taking place, and was actively participating in the conversion from one religion to another, which is against the law.
The court in its decision dated July 9, the court noted that section 3 of the 2021 Act clearly prohibits conversion from one religion to another based on misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, and allurement.
The court also observed that the Act further provides for punishment for contravention of the provisions of the section, which also restricts a person from abetting, convincing, or conspiring to such conversion.
Further, the Court stated that the Act of 2021 was enacted keeping in view Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which does not allow or permit any citizen to convert any citizen from one religion to another religion.
In view of this, taking into account the allegations made against the accused, the court noted that the informant was persuaded to convert to another religion, and this was prima facie sufficient to decline bail to the applicant as it established the fact that a conversion programme was going on, and many villagers belonging to the scheduled castes community were being converted from Hinduism to Christianity.
