Supreme Court Hears AG's Arguments In Religious Conversion Case Against SHUATS University VC & Officials

The Supreme Court today heard an SLP filed against an order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to quash an FIR lodged against the Vice-Chancellor (Dr.) Rajendra Bihari Lal Director Vinod Bihari Lal and five other officials of the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (SHUATS) over alleged illegal religious conversions.

The Court had granted interim protection from arrest to the Vice Chancellor and other officials of the SHUATS in December last year. In January 2024, they extended the interim protection.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra is hearing the SLP.

Submissions 

Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani, assisted the Court relating to the issue of forceful and deceitful religious conversions.

AGI requested that the court adopt a 'broad view' in the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 adding the caveat that there cannot be "a prosecution which is unfair under the law and a person's liberty cannot be taken for granted".

He stated that the court has to only take a "subtle view".

Reading his note submitted to the court, AGI mentioned that in the present FIRs, Aadhar card printing machines have been recovered from the university's premises along with bogus Aadhar cards.

AGI stated that all those unlawfully converted in this case were given a new Aadhaar card in which their names were changed after conversion.

When Justice Misra asked if the Aadhar numbers recovered had been tallied to check their veracity, AGI replied in affirmative but added that in an Article 32 petition, the court cannot go into the veracity of the material recovered as it would pertain to performing a trial. 

The petitioners have filed an Article 32 petition for the quashing of the FIRs. On this, AGI submitted that the court should not entertain the petition considering the evidence against the petitioners including that the remedy is limited by the fact that the constitutionality of the 2021 Act is pending before the court. Alternatively, the matter should be relegated to the Allahabad High Court. 

Second, AGI stated that the FIRs and chargesheet filed disclose the commission of a cognisable offence. Therefore, no case for quashing is made out. 

Third, the AGI perused the provisions of the 2021 Act.

Justice Pardiwala at the outset stated that 2021 prohibits under Section 3 by "use of practice of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or by any fraudulent means." Section 3 prohibits any person to abet, or conspire for such conversions.

He asked what material is there on record to show that the present conversions took place under "use of practice of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or by any fraudulent means".

To this, AGI responded that the contents of the FIR itself indicate that conversions are unlawful. 

The court explained that it wants clarification on this issue in regards to Section 4 which allows "any aggrieved person" including persons, brother, sister, or any other person related to blood, marriage or adoption may lodge an FIR on such conversions which contravened provisions of Section 3. 

The court sought clarification as to who were the aggrieved persons who were entitled to file FIR in the present case. 

Terming this as an "important question", AGI stated: "How do you make sense of Section 4, particularly in the context of Section 3..."

Interjecting, Justice Pardiwala said: "Suppose, there are 5 FIRs, 10 FIRs, are these FIRs lodged by aggrieved persons within the meaning of Section 4? What is the factual position?"

AGI answered that except for the FIR lodged in 2024, all are by aggrieved persons. He added that every converted person has given the FIR broadly "referring to the elements of Section 3".

The AGI referred to Section 8 and added that clause 1 of the provision provides a procedure for lawful conversion. He stated that Section 8(1) requires a declaration in advance to the District Magistrate that the person wishes to convert on his/her 'own' and with his/her 'free consent' and without "any force, coercion, undue influence or allurement".

AGI added that assistance of Section 8(1) or (2) in the present case would make it clear that no declarations are made by persons who were allegedly converted or by those who performed the conversion ceremony. 

He explained that a lack of declaration for desiring to convert would attract Section 8(5) which imposes an imprisonment of not less than 6 months on failing to furnish a declaration under Section 8(1).

The Court pointed out that under the 2021 Act, the burden of proof is the person converted to show that the conversion was not affected by the elements stated under Section 3. 

To this, AGI responded that the burden of proof could be easily discharged in lawful conversions. For a convertee, the burden of proof could be considered as per Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, to discharge what is within his/her knowledge. 

Further, the AGI submitted that the lawful or the unlawfulness of the conversion is also established from Section 8(2) which requires that the one religious converter must give a one-month notice before the scheduled conversion and the District Magistrate is to inquire into the conversion. 

On this, Justice Pardiwala pointed out that mass conversion (converting two or more people) has not been made a distinct offence except that the higher degree of punishment is provided in the second proviso to Section 5. 

The concerned proviso states that whoever contravenes Section 3 in respect of mass conversion shall be punished for not less than 3 years and may extend to 10 years along with a minimum fine of Rs 50,000.

Justice Pardiwala asked if it was a case of mass conversion, would separate FIRs be maintainable. 

Additionally, Justice Misra pointed out that in none of the FIRs, Section 8(5) has been invoked in this case considering that the present case pertains to unlawful conversion in contravention with Section 8(1).

AGI answered that the court does not need to go into this issue under Article 32. But added that if it has been found that Section 8(1) has not been followed, the punishment under Section 8(5) could be invoked later. 

The Court noted that Section 8(5) has not been invoked in the charge sheet. 

AGI submitted that this may not create any infirmity in terms of the legality of the FIRs. He added that only in one FIR, Section 8 has been invoked. 

It should be noted that Section 8(5) may not be invoked in a situation where Section 8(1) was not contravened but it was later found that the declaration was made based on the elements of allurement, misrepresentation etc. 

AGI stated in all FIRs, a document has been recovered which relates to promises based on allurement for conversion. 

The Court on the next occasion has asked the petitioners to answer whether present FIRs disclose cognisance offence, who are the "aggrieved persons" in the present case and under Article 32, can the court quash FIRs. 

 The Court will continue hearing the petitions on Thursday. 

Case Details: VINOD BIHARI LAL Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 3210/2023 (and connected matters)

Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave (for Rajendra Bihari Lal and Vinod Bihar Lal) VINOD BIHARI LAL Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR., SLP(Crl) No. 3210/2023 (and connected matters)

Click Here To Read/Download Order