"Citizens Can Profess And Propagate Their Own Religion": Bombay High Court Quashes Section 144 Order Against Christian Couple Accused Of Conversion

Prohibiting individuals from carrying out any religious activities on their property through an order under section 144 of the CrPC is a direct violation of their fundamental rights enshrined in Article19(1), Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India the Bombay High Court held.

The Goa bench comprising Justices Mahesh Sonak and Valmiki Menezes quashed an order passed under section 144 of the CrPC by the district magistrate against a Christian couple accused of religious conversion.  

The court said that the petitioner and her husband were within their rights to propagate their own religion and to profess it in any manner that they please though within the bounds of law, more so, when it is within their own private property.

“We are of the opinion, that by claiming to exercise jurisdiction under Section 144 of the Code and prohibiting the Petitioner and Domnic from carrying out any religious activities in their property in Siolim is a direct violation of their fundamental rights enshrined in Article 19(1), Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, as it seeks to deny them both of their freedom of speech and expression and to their freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, propagate their religion or form religious institutions.”

In a plea filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Joan Mascarenhas E D'Souza sought to quash an order dated December 28, 2022, passed by the District Magistrate (North) banning her from carrying out religious activities in her institutional building situated on their property in Siolim Goa. The Magistrate justified the order by saying it was to curb religious conversion by means of allurement or fraud affecting the freedom of religion and conscience of citizens.

D'Souza claimed that she along with her husband were carrying out religious activities for the last 23 years, and were engaged in preaching scriptural teachings from the Holy Bible. The duo were followers of Jesus Christ and in the exercise of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, they had formed a group to preach and propagate their religion and belief. 

Agreeing with the petitioner’s argument, the bench observed that it found no complaint against D'Souza which would amount to using force, coercion or deception to convert any members of the public to a particular religion. The magistrate’s order, other than making reference to certain material did not cite a single incident or particulars of forced conversion being indulged in by the Petitioner.

Moreover, there are other penal laws that could deal with such complaints against the Petitioner, and that by itself could not be a cause for the District Magistrate to exercise jurisdiction under Section 144 of the Code.

“The conclusion that the Petitioner and her husband are carrying out religious activities which have raised communal tension in the village or that they are involved in religious conversion by means of allurement or fraud, appears to be totally baseless, not founded upon any material on record and can, therefore, not form the basis for any subjective opinion that the acts of the Petitioner would cause a disturbance of public tranquility or be a matter of public order.”

“The Petitioner and her husband Domnic are within their rights to propagate their own religion and to profess it in any manner that they please though within the bounds of law, more so, when it is within their own private property.”

Case No- CRI WP 63 of 2023

Title - Mrs. Joan Mascarenhas E D'Souza vs  State of Goa

Appearances - Adv for Petitioner Ankur Kumar, Addl govt Pleader Adv Pravin Faldessai