Constitution does not protect forced or fraudulent conversion: Allahabad HC
Allahabad High Court has observed that though the Indian Constitution gives every citizen the right to freely follow and spread their religion, it does not support forced or fraudulent conversions.
Justice Vinod Diwaker observed while rejecting a plea to cancel an FIR against four people accused under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021.
According to the complaint, the accused tried to convert people to Christianity by offering money and free medical care.
The court refused to cancel the case, stating that the charges were serious and valid enough for a police investigation.
Also Read | Allahabad HC verdict in Sambhal Jama Masjid dispute case on May 19
In its judgment, the court observed, "India's constitutional framework guarantees the right to religious freedom under Article 25.
This Article confers upon every person the fundamental right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health. The use of the word 'freely' in Article 25 underscores the voluntary nature of religious belief and expression."
"However, the Constitution does not endorse forced or fraudulent conversions, nor does it shield coercive or deceptive practices under the guise of religious propagation," it added.
The court maintained that these limitations are essential to ensure that the exercise of religious freedom does not disrupt the societal fabric or endanger individual and communal well-being.
"The presumption that one religion is inherently superior to another presupposes the moral and spiritual superiority of one religion over another. Such a notion is fundamentally antithetical to the idea of secularism. Indian secularism is rooted in the principle of equal respect for all religions. The state must neither identify with nor favour any religion, but instead maintain a principled equidistance from all religions and faith," the ruling said.
Also Read | Justice Varma's defence in plea rests on proof of money stash
Commenting on the 2021 Act prohibiting unlawful religious conversion brought in by the Uttar Pradesh government, the court stated that it was enacted to maintain public order, moral integrity and health in alignment with Article 25 of the Constitution.
The May 7 judgment also looked into a legal issue as to whether a police officer can be considered an "aggrieved person" under Section 4 of the 2021 Act.
Also Read | Allahabad HC dismisses pleas challenging Prof Naima Khatoon's appointment as AMU VC
This section generally allows only the victim or close relatives to file a complaint.
The bench clarified that the station house officer can file such FIRs because the law must be read with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita provisions that allow the police to act in cognizable offences.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
17 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Judicial Activism Shouldn't Turn Into Judicial Terrorism": Chief Justice Of India
New Delhi: Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai described the Constitution as a "quiet revolution etched in ink" and a transformative force that not only guarantees rights but actively uplifts the historically oppressed. He was speaking at the Oxford Union on the theme 'From Representation to Realisation: Embodying the Constitution's Promise'. He also cautioned against straying into what he called "judicial terrorism" from "judicial activism". Responding to a question by the news website Bar and Bench, Chief Justice Gavai said while judicial activism has relevance in India, it would not be a good thing to step into an area where the "judiciary should not enter". "Judicial activism is bound to stay. At the same time, judicial activism should not be turned into judicial terrorism. So, at times, you try to exceed the limits and try to enter into an area where, normally, the judiciary should not enter," Chief Justice Gavai said in response to a question by Bar and Bench. He said the judiciary will still step in if the legislature or the executive fail in their duties to safeguard the rights of people. However, the power of judicial review should be used in rare cases, Chief Justice Gavai said. "... that power [judicial review] has to be exercised in a very limited area in very exception cases, like, say, a statute, is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, or it is in direct conflict with any of the fundamental rights of the Constitution, or if the statute is so patently arbitrary, discriminatory... the courts can exercise it, and the courts have done so," he said. In April this year, the Supreme Court for the first time prescribed that the President should decide on bills reserved for her consideration by the Governor within three months from the date on which such reference is received. A month later, President Droupadi Murmu wrote to the Supreme Court and asked if timelines could be imposed on Governors. President Murmu sought the Supreme Court's opinion under Article 143 of the Constitution, which gives the President the power to consult the court on legal issues or matters of public importance. "Is the Governor bound by the aid and advice tendered by the Council of Ministers while exercising all the options available with him when a Bill is presented before him under Article 200 of the Constitution of India?" the President asked the Supreme Court. President Murmu asked if a Governor's exercise of constitutional discretion is justiciable - subject to a trial in court. She cited Article 361 of the Constitution, which says the President or the Governor shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise of the powers and duties of office.
New Indian Express
31 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Modi govt using UAPA to crush dissent, erode constitutional rights: Congress
NEW DELHI: The Congress on Wednesday accused the Modi government of stifling dissent and said the "dangerous misuse" of laws like the UAPA to threaten free expression is part of the BJP's broader attack on the Constitution. The opposition party hit out at the government and cited several cases, including those of Anand Teltumbde, Nodeep Kaur, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty. "Under the Modi government, law has increasingly been used to stifle dissent and delay justice. Between 2014 and 2022, 8,719 UAPA cases yielded only a 2.55% conviction rate, exposing its misuse to target critics, students, journalists, and activists," Congress' media and publicity department head Pawan Khera said in a post on X. "Pre-trial presumption of guilt, social media and media-driven trials, and recent trend of dismissing habeas corpus petitions by the Supreme Court deepen this crisis of justice," he said. Anand Teltumbde, Nodeep Kaur, and Mahesh Raut were arrested under UAPA in the Bhima Koregaon case, Khera said. Teltumbde, he pointed out, was released after serving three years in jail and Kaur was granted bail the same year she was arrested, but she was allegedly beaten and sexually assaulted while in custody. Mahesh Raut has been in prison since 2018, he added. "Student activists Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, and Safoora Zargar were arrested under UAPA for their alleged involvement in the anti-CAA protests. Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam remain in jail from 2020," he said. Khera alleged that journalists Fahad Shah and Irfan Mehraj were arrested under UAPA for their reporting. "Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty were arrested under UAPA in a foreign funding case related to NewsClick in 2023. Fahad Shah was released after 600 days. The rest continue to languish in jails," he said. These are just fragments of a far more entrenched rot, Khera said. "In reality, most of these are cases of vendetta against those challenging this government. Courts repeatedly highlight this abuse. Delhi HC explicitly stated, 'Protest cannot be terrorism', releasing Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal & Asif Tanha. SC freed journalist Zubair and climate activist Disha Ravi, criticizing arrests as attempts to stifle free speech," the Congress leader said. "Safeguarding India's democracy begins with protecting peaceful dissent and free expression. But the dangerous misuse of laws like UAPA threatens these very freedoms, and is a part of BJP's broader attack on the Indian Constitution," Khera said. He also shared an article written by Khalid from his time in Tihar jail.
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC push nudges Jharkhand HC to grant child care leave to woman judge
The Supreme Court on Wednesday noted that the Jharkhand High Court has allowed a 92-day child care leave (CCL) to a senior woman judicial officer -- a single parent, after the top court's firm nudge last week. However, the case took a fresh turn as the officer alleged that the high court sought to tarnish her annual confidential report (ACR) in retaliation for her petition seeking leave. A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan, while taking note of the high court's affidavit allowing part of the officer's requested leave, issued notice to the high court on the judicial officer's additional plea seeking expunging of adverse ACR remarks. The matter will be heard in four weeks. 'In deference to this court's June 6 order, we have taken a decision granting her 92-day leave,' senior advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha, appearing for the Jharkhand High Court, submitted before the bench. Also Read: SC stays Madras HC order, allows toll collection on NH38 However, he added that allowing eight months of continuous leave for an officer heading the district judiciary at Hazaribagh would set an undesirable precedent. 'She has asked for 194 days. Her child has exams in 2026. This kind of stretch leave is not advisable,' Sinha said. Representing the woman officer, advocate Anup Kumar said she had applied for CCL between June 10 and December 20, 2025, to assist her son in preparing for his Class XII board and engineering entrance examinations. He also pointed out that her ACR had been adversely commented upon in a May 23 communication after she moved the Supreme Court. The communication stated that her 'conduct has not been good.' The woman officer's lawyer contended that adverse comments in her ACR dated May 23 appeared part of a retaliatory act by the administration. At this, the bench observed, 'You proceed on leave for 92 days, and we will see later,' before recording the fresh plea regarding her ACR and issuing notice. On June 6, the top court had asked the Jharkhand high court to revisit its decision rejecting the woman judge's CCL application, making it clear that if the matter was not resolved by June 12, it would intervene. The officer, a Scheduled Caste (SC) judicial officer serving since 2002, was transferred in April from Hazaribagh, where her son studies, to Dumka, despite having sought a transfer to Ranchi or Bokaro where better coaching facilities are available. Her request for CCL, soon after, was summarily rejected by the high court on May 10 without assigning reasons. In her plea, the officer pointed out that another judicial officer had recently been granted three months of CCL by the high court and alleged that her case had been treated differently, amounting to discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petition cited Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972, which entitles eligible female government employees to 730 days of CCL during their service tenure, with full pay for the first 365 days and 80% for the remaining period. A March 2024 resolution of the Jharkhand government and an August 2024 circular by the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court reinforced this entitlement, specifically in the context of children's exams, illness, or care requirements. However, the state objected to her petition, with advocate Vishnu Sharma arguing before the court last week that granting such leave would 'open a Pandora's box.' The Supreme Court, on June 6, dismissed the state's apprehensions, clarifying that the matter lay squarely between the high court and its officer. 'There is enough power with the high court unless you think someone is not acting bonafide,' the bench had then remarked.
