Constitution does not support forced of fraudulent conversion, Allahabad High Court
By Rajesh Pandey
In an important judgment, the Allahabad High Court has said that the Indian Constitution gives every citizen the right to freely follow and spread their religion, but it does not support forced or fraudulent conversions.
The bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar held that “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 held that “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 Indian 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 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 a police investigation.
In its judgement, the court held that “the presumption that one religion is inherently superior to another presupposes the moral and spiritual superiority of one religion over another.
Such a 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 identifies with nor favours any religion, but instead must maintain a principled equidistance from all religions and faith.”
Commenting on the 2021 law brought by the Uttar Pradesh Government, the Court stated that the law has been enacted, aimed at maintaining public order, moral integrity, and health in alignment with Article 25 of the Constitution.
“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 noted in its ruling.
The court in its judgment dated May 7 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.
