Prima Facie S. 3 & 5 Of UP's 'Anti Conversion' Law Aren't Glaringly Unconstitutional: Allahabad HC Denies Relief To 'SHUATS' VC

The Allahabad High Court recently refused to grant any relief to the VC of Allahabad's Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS), Dr Rajendra Bihari Lal and 7 others, in an FIR filed against them over the allegation of offering allurement to a man to convert to Christianity.

The bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Gajendra Kumar also said that prima facie, Sections 3 & 5 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 do not appear to be glaringly unconstitutional or ex facie unconstitutional.

Perusing the February 2023 FIR lodged in the case, the bench observed that the same contains direct allegations of allurement having been offered by Dr. Lal and 7 others to the first informant and, therefore, the Court added, such allegations, prima facie, constitute an offence under Section 3 of the Act.

For context, Section 3 of the Act provides that no person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any other person from one religion to another by use or practice of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means. It also provides that no person shall abet, convince or conspire in such conversion. The punishment for contravention of Section 3 is provided under Section 5 of the Act.

The case in brief

Essentially, the Court was dealing with a Criminal Writ plea filed by 8 petitioners seeking protection from arrest, quashing of the FIR and a declaration that Sections 3, 5 & 12 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 are ultra vires to the Constitution of India.

It was further contended that though the main offence against the petitioners is a violation of the provisions of the 2021 Act, no offence is disclosed because the provisions of law contained in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, which are mandatory have not been complied with, therefore no religious conversion actually took place.

Importantly, relying upon the Supreme Court's Judgments in the cases of Health For Millions Trust vs Union Of India (2013) and Bhavesh D. Parish & Others vs Union Of India And Another (2000), Senior Counsel Gopal Chaturvedi, appearing for the petitioners argued that since the petition challenges the vires of Section 3, 5 and 12 of the 2021 Act, which are ex facie unconstitutional or manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional, an interim order can be granted in favour of the petitioners during the pendency of the petition.

It may be noted that in the aforesaid ruling of the Apex Court, it had been held that unless a provision of law whose vires is impugned, is ex facie unconstitutional or manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional, no interim order should be granted during the pendency of the petition. 

Taking note of the same, the High Court observed thus:

"Upon a perusal of the FIR, we find therein, direct allegations of allurement having been offered by the petitioners to the first informant and, therefore, in our considered opinion, the allegation, prima facie, constitute an offence under Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned first information report cannot be quashed, till such time, the primary relief prayed for in the writ petition, namely striking down of Section 3 as unconstitutional, is granted. We see no justification for granting any interim order to the petitioners as the provisions of Sections 3 & 5 prima facie do not appear to be glaringly unconstitutional or ex facie unconstitutional. The stay application is, therefore, rejected."

However, the Court did add that since the vires of some sections of the Act are under challenge, the respondents may file counter affidavits in the matter within two weeks. With this, the Court directed to list the petition thereafter, for admission/hearing.

Appearances

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Gopal Chaturvedi assisted by Advocate Anuj Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent: Additional Advocate General Manish Goel, Advocates Kamla Singh Vishal Tandon

Case title - Dr R.B. Lal And 7 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 193 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1634 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 193

Click Here To Read/Download Order