Supreme Court Stays Criminal Proceedings Against Catholic Priest Under Gujarat Anti-Conversion Law For Baptising Child

A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra was hearing the pastor’s plea challenging the refusal of the Gujarat High Court to quash a first information report (FIR) lodged against him by the state police. The petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Shivansh Bharatkumar Pandya.

Advocate Ketki Jha appearing for the petitioner argued that Sections 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act were not made out against him. She said –

“The child’s mother is a Christian, who has a baptism certificate. The father is a Hindu. In 2012, the baptism of the child took place. In 2014, there was a fall-out between the parents, and the father complained before the police superintendent, making the allegations which have now been made by a third party, a complete stranger…”

“What is your point on merits?” Chief Justice Chandrachud asked the counsel.

“There is no conversion as far as the act is concerned because the child was brought up in a Christian family, and he attended church regularly with his mother,” Jha replied.

After she made her submissions, the bench agreed to issue notice. Not only this, it also put a temporary stop to the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-priest who has been alleged of forceful religious conversion. The order reads –

“Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that on the face of the FIR, the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act 2003 are not attracted, there being no conversion. The submission is that the mother of the child was originally a Christian and the petitioner who was a parish priest had baptised the child. Issue notice, returnable in three weeks. Liberty to serve the standing counsel for the State of Gujarat, in addition. Till the next date of listing, there shall be a stay of further proceedings arising from the FIR.”

Background

The petitioner – a Catholic parish priest – has sought the quashing of an FIR lodged against him for baptising the child in 2012, who was born to an interfaith couple – a Christian mother, and a Hindu father. The parents, the petitioner has claimed, already had strained marital relations at the time of the baptism in 2012, and executed a divorce deed four years prior to this. The child was also raised by the mother in a Christian household and both the parents consented to the child’s baptism, the priest has insisted.

The FIR against him was registered on the strength of a complaint filed in 2020 by a third party who alleged that the priest had converted the child from Hinduism to Christianity without the permission of the district magistrate.  

The petitioner first approached the Gujarat High Court, praying for the FIR to be quashed. He argued that the process of baptism was distinct from that of religious conversion as defined in the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act of 2003, and emphasised the parents’ consent to the baptism. Last month, a single-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court, however, refused to quash the FIR against the pastor for alleged forceful religious conversion. Justice Sandeep N Bhatt wrote –

“This Court possesses ample powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to intervene even after the trial has commenced before the trial court…In the present case, it is prima facie evident that the applicant has breached Section 5 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003, by converting the minor child without obtaining the required permission from the district magistrate. Considering this violation, the court finds no valid reason to interfere with the proceedings initiated following the FIR. The criminal case is already in progress, and the trial has been initiated.”

Against this judgment of the high court, the priest has moved the Supreme Court. Among other things, he has argued that the single judge treated the quashing petition like a criminal appeal and conclusively held the petitioner to be guilty, including under Section 5 of the Freedom of Religion Act. This is notwithstanding the non-mention of Section 5 in the charge sheet filed by the Gujarat police. The petitioner has also contended that the act of baptism does not fall under the act’s definition of ‘conversion’, since it did not involve ‘renunciation’ of one religion and ‘adoption’ of a different religion. and adoption of a new religion –

“The high court has failed to properly consider the petitioner's contention that there has been no ‘conversion’ within the meaning of the Act, as there was no process of ‘renunciation’ of one religion and ‘adoption’ of a different religion, and instead the child has been treated as being born to a Christian mother and raised with Christian beliefs, which is a pre-condition to administration of rite of baptism to a child".

The petitioner has also raised concerns regarding the unintended consequences of anti-conversion laws on interfaith families and religious practices in the country. Interpreting the law to include acts other than conversions of individuals without their consent or their legal guardian’s could lead to personal disputes being leveraged under the guise of conversion allegations, as seen in this case. Not only this, the petition highlights the syncretic nature of religious identification in India and emphasises the need for nuanced interpretations to avoid misuse of such laws –

“The facts of the present case clearly go on to show the syncretic and synthetical approach to religion prevalent in our country, whereby there is a great amount of fluidity in the pursuit of religion and religious identification. The same cannot be pigeonholed and attempts to do so ignore the basic ground realities prevailing in our country.”

Case Title

Charles v. State of Gujarat & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10010 of 2023