Can NCPCR Lodge FIR Under MP Freedom Of Religion Act Without Complaint Of Person Converted? Supreme Court To Consider

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) challenging an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which held that a complaint under the MP Freedom of Religion Act can be made only by a person converted or person aggrieved or against whom attempt is made for conversion or by their relatives.

The High Court made this interpretation while granting anticipatory bail to a Catholic Archbishop and a nun in an FIR over alleged religious conversion of children in a shelter home.  The complaint in the instant case was made by the NCPCR Chairperson. The High Court held that the police did not have jurisdiction to investigate the matter under the MP Freedom of Religion Act in the absence of a complaint by the affected persons or their relatives. Taking objection to this finding, the national statutory body approached the Supreme Court.

At the outset, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra doubted the locus of NCPCR in the matter. CJI DY Chandrachud remarked–

"Section 4 of the MP Freedom of Religion Act says the complaint has to be by the person who was converted. Where did NCPCR get the locus? The MP Act is very clear - complaint by them, his parents, his siblings, blood relatives, etc. So, the Act is very clear." 

Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi, appearing for the NCPCR argued that the NCPCR was the statutory body in charge of inspecting any person or organisation which violated the rights of children. She argued that a State Act cannot oust the jurisdiction of a national statutory body, which has been specifically created for the purpose of protecting child rights. She contended that a harmonious interpretation of the State law with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 was necessary.

The bench observed that the NCPCR can still file an independent complaint under the JJ Act.  Ultimately, noting that the matter at hand was "serious" and "required consideration", the court issued notice. The bench said that it can clarify that the observations pertain only to the grant of anticipatory bail and cannot be read as a wider formulation of law.

"We issue notice to be served on respondents. The area where High Court seems to have missed the issue is the non-consideration of Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act (which provides for punishment for cruelty to children). List after 2 weeks", CJI said. 

Chaturvedi made a further request to stay the order by pointing out that the observations made by the High Court can impact other pending cases. However, the bench declined to do so. "We cannot stay the anticipatory bail and we cannot stay the observations", CJI said.

The Court further added that the State government, which was represented by Additional Advocate General Ankita Chaudhary, can still file an independent complaint under the Juvenile Justice Act in connection with the alleged imparting of religious education in the shelter home.

In NCPCR's plea, it has been stated that the HC had erred in literally interpreting the State Act (Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act) instead of considering the legislative intent behind the enactment of the same. The SLP states–

"High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the Respondents herein on the hypertechnical ground that the complaint has been made by person who conducted inspection and not by person converted or person aggrieved or against whom attempt is made for conversion or by their relatives or blood relatives as is provided u/s 4 of M.P. Religion Freedom Act."

Stating that the High Court still decided that the respondents were deserving of anticipatory bail, even when an offence as serious as religious conversion was involved, the NCPCR has also underlined its locus in the matter. It has stated–

"The NCPCR also has the statutory authority to take suo moto action against, and inspect any person or organisation which violates the rights of children and take further action to prevent such transgressions from taking place, which includes approaching the police and filing a complaint. Therefore, the complaint made by the Chairperson, NCPCR, after inspection is justified in the eyes of law and hence the impugned Order is legally unjustified and deserves the indulgence of this Hon'ble Court."