Parts Of UP Anti-Conversion Law Seem To Be Violating Article 25 Of Constitution: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday orally commented that the Uttar Pradesh anti-conversion law [UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021] in some parts may seem to be violative of the fundamental right to religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution

The bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing petitions by Vice Chancellor of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS), Dr Rajendra Bihari Lal, and other accused persons, in a case over alleged forceful religious conversions

The bench asked, “When you say conversion, what sort of conversion was it here?”

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, for the accused, replied that the conversion in question was from the Hindu religion to Christianity

“Was this forced? This was an actual conversion?”, the bench inquired

Mr. Dave responded that there are FIRs lodged pertaining to the conversions with the claim that the conversions were coerced.

He also submitted that the FIRs are not at the behest of a victim but in fact a co-accused. Mr. Dave indicated section 4 of the UP Anti-Conversion law which stipulates that only the aggrieved person, their mother/father, sibling or any other person related to them by blood, marriage or adoption may register an FIR for an offence under the Act

“What if some third person is aware of such-and-such happening? They can make an FIR?”, asked the bench

Mr. Dave replied that the same is not envisaged under the provisions of the Act and that there can no investigation in such a circumstance

Perusing the scheme of the Act, the bench noted, “Conversion by itself is not an offence but when it is brought about by undue influence, misrepresentation, coercion, etc. So in such a circumstance, only the victim can say that he has been illegally converted and no other person”

Perusing the FIR, the bench questioned, “What is meant by 420 and forgery here?”

“That there was allurement, that names in personal documents were modified”, told Mr. Dave

“What does it mean when it is said that a ritual took place in a church and that 'Father' was performing the conversion? Are there any witness statements with regard to luring and coercion?”, asked the bench

“Nothing is told that would indicate that any offence was committed. They don't even say what church it was, which section it was of”, replied Mr. Dave

Next, Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, for the other accused, urged that as per the FIRs, the victims were nowhere to be seen at the place of the alleged offence and that now the claim is that the accused had made the victims flee. She submitted that actually the accused are names as victims in the FIRs. Further, she advanced that the FIR does not particularly name the accused she is appearing for, that the allegations levelled are vague and that the FIR was lodged at a very delayed stage

At this, the bench asked, “What about section 10 of the Act? It attaches vicarious liability to you for your institution. You may not have been present but what about your organisation? If they were there, you can be connected?”

“The institution must be one involved in the commission of the offence. This is not my institution”, responded Mr. Dave

Senior Advocate Rebecca John, for certain other accused, prayed for the quashing for the FIRs on the ground that the first FIR was registered 5 months prior to all the others, and that registration of FIRs so many months subsequent to the alleged incident indicates mala fide. She pressed that there can be only 1 FIR for 1 transaction and that if the first FIR is sustained, then all the others must go, and that a second FIR can be retained only if it is by way of a counter. She urged that if the first is quashed, then the next would be considered

“How is conversion different from mass conversions?”, the bench wanted to know

Ms. John indicated how the Act envisages a more severe punishment for carrying out mass conversions

“So mass conversion would automatically mean that conversion is taking place?”, noted the bench

“Yes”, replied Ms. John

“Who can complain of a mass conversion then?”, asked the bench

“For normal conversion, it has to be by the aggrieved person. In case of mass conversion, it can be by anyone who is aggrieved by it. The FIR has to be of a mass conversion and not of single conversion”, replied Ms. John

“Should we read 'conversion' in section 4 to include mass conversion? In section 3?”, asked the bench

Finally, Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, for the other accused, sought to take the bench through the provisions of the Act.

At this, Justice Misra asked, “Are the provisions of the Act not under challenge?”

Mr. Aggarwal replied that they are, though not in the present string of petitions, and that the relevant matters are not being listed

“This anti-conversion law in some part may seem to be violative of Article 25”, observed Justice Misra

Finally, treating the present petitions as part-heard, the bench ordered that until the next date of hearing, there shall be no further proceedings in the FIRs.

As per the provisions of the UP law, prior sanction of the District Magistrate is required for religious conversion.  

Case Title : RAJENDRA BIHARI LAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.| W.P.(Crl.) No. 123/2023 and connected cases.