Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Pleas Of SHUATS VC & Officials To Quash Cases Under UP Religious Conversion Law

The Supreme Court on October 1 reserved the judgment in a batch of petitions seeking to quash the criminal cases against the Vice Chancellor and other officials of the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (SHUATS), Prayagraj over alleged forced mass religious conversions of people to Christianity.

The Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 were filed before the Supreme Court against an order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to quash FIRs lodged against the Vice-Chancellor (Dr.) Rajendra Bihari Lal Director Vinod Bihari Lal and five other officials of the institute. The parties have also filed writ petitions seeking to consolidate certain FIRs and challenging them.

Another is the set of writ petitions filed under Article 32 praying for the quashing of all FIRs and alternatively, transfer of all similar criminal complaints/FIRs filed across the State of Uttar Pradesh against the petitioners to Naini, Allahabad and then consolidating them all and for a stay of coercive action on them during the pendency of the present petition.

The FIRs [224/2022, 47, 54, 55 and 60 of 2023] are for offences punishable under Sections 153A, 506, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The Supreme Court Court had earlier granted interim protection from arrest to the Vice Chancellor and other officials of the SHUATS in December last year. It also stayed the arrest through in certain other cases.

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard the matter. During a hearing in May, the Court had orally observed that some parts of the UP law on religious conversions seemed to be violative of Article 25 of the Constitution.

Arguments of the parties

The petitioners have argued that they belong to a religious minority and are continuously harassed and intimated by the Uttar Pradesh Government. It was stated that there is no evidence in support of the arguments contended by the respondents that the petitioners have engaged in forced conversions.

The petitioners stated that the FIRs registered are false and frivolous and untenable in law and have been lodged to disrupt the functioning of the SHUATS.

They have sought consolidation of all FIRs in this case as according to them several FIRs have been registered in different parts of Uttar Pradesh. One set of FIRs pertains to the alleged mass conversion. Another FIR was lodged in 2023, where individual persons have alleged that they were allured to convert to Christianity on the pretext of getting cash, a job in SHUATs or getting married in which the petitioners are directly named. Similar other FIRs registered in 2023 pertain to individual conversions.

"These several F.I.R's are a part of well-coordinated and malicious campaign by the Respondent State to infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25, 29 and 30," as argued by petitioners.

The petitioners referred to Arnab Ranjan Gonswami v. UOI (2020) and argued that multiple FIRs and their investigation endangered and infringed their personal rights and liberty.

Further, they relied on Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors (2019) and stated that the Supreme Court has held that in exercising Article 32 jurisdiction, 'bail can be granted if the multiple F.I.Rs originate from the same alleged incident'.

Considering the importance of the matter, the Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani, was asked to assist the Court relating to the issue of forceful and deceitful religious conversions. On the last hearing, the AGI submitted that the Court should adopt a 'broad view' in the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 adding a caveat that there cannot be "a prosecution which is unfair under the law and a person's liberty cannot be taken for granted".

He informed the Court that the present FIRs disclose the commission of a cognisance offence. The evidence recovered such as Aadhar card printing machines have been recovered from the university's premises along with bogus Aadhar cards. These were allegedly used for forceful conversion.

The AGI also referred to the provisions of the 2021 Act. As per 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. AGI argued that the contents of the FIR indicate that conversions are unlawful.

Next, he perused 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. On seeking clarification as to who were the aggrieved persons who were entitled to file FIR in the present case, the AGI stated that except for the FIR lodged in 2024, all are by aggrieved persons.

It should be noted that a challenge to the constitutionality of the 2021 Act is pending before the Supreme Court in cases filed by Citizen for Justice and Peace and Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind.

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., WP(Crl) No. 123/2023 (and connected matters)