Can NCPCR File Complaint Under MP Freedom Of Religion Act Against Unlawful Conversion Of Kids? Supreme Court Leaves Question Open

The Supreme Court recently expressed reservations about the view expressed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) cannot file a complaint under the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, in the absence of a complaint of unlawful religious conversion by a person(or their parents/siblings) who has been illegally converted.

However, the Court did not pronounce anything finally on the issue and kept it open. It directed that the High Court's observations shall not be treated as a precedent in any future case.

As per the brief facts, the complainant Priyank Kanangoo, NCPCR Chairman, carried out an inspection of Asha Kiran Institute - run by the Catholic Church - and allegedly found that Hindu children were forced to read the Bible and visit the church. 

On the basis of said inspection, FIR was registered against applicants under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Sections 3 and 5 of Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 over the alleged religious conversion of children in the shelter home. This was challenged by the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, Diocese of Jabalpur District Katni and sister of Convent Asha Kiran Institute, which was established in District Katni by the Roman Catholic Church.

The High Court while granting anticipatory bail to a Catholic Archbishop and a nun in an FIR, 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. 

Against the high court's order, the SLPs were filed before the Supreme Court. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan refused to interfere with the High Court's order since after the completion of the investigation, the Respondents were granted regular bail by the trial court. However, the Court expressed reservation to the observations made by the High Court in terms of the locus standi of the NCPCR in filing the complaint in this case. 

The High Court in paragraph 8 observed:

"Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides for punishment and sentence of three years only. Police Officer shall not inquire or investigate a compliant under Section 3 of M.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 unless said complaint is a written complaint by a person aggrieved, who has been converted or attempt has been made for his conversion or by person who are parents or siblings or with leave of the Court by any person who is related by blood, marriage or adoption, guardianship or custodianship, as may be applicable. In the present case, complaint has been lodged by an individual who conducted inspection. No complaint has been made by person converted or person aggrieved or against whom attempt is made for conversion or by their relatives or blood relatives. In absence of such written complaint, police does not have any jurisdiction to inquire or investigate into offence committed under Section 3 of Act of 2021."

Expressing reservation to this paragraph, the Supreme Court remarked:

"...upon consideration of the provisions of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 assigning the role of parens patriae to the NCPCR qua children in distress as well as the 2015 Act and the 2021 Act, we have our reservations with regard to what has been expressed by the High Court in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment and order. We, therefore, observe that the observations made in paragraph 8 shall not be treated to be precedent for deciding future cases and the question of locus standi of the NCPCR to lodge a complaint in an appropriate case, upon following the due procedure laid down therefor, is kept open."

A bench headed by former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra while issuing notice had doubted the locus of NCPCR in the matter. It said: "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."

Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi appeared for the NCPCR.

Case Details: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. JERALD ALAMEDA AND ANR.|SLP(Crl) No. 6321/2023 and NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS (NCPCR) v. JERALD ALAMEDA AND ORS| SLP(Crl) No. 10143/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order