Allahabad HC says mass religious conversions threaten public order and police have power to file criminal proceedings, refuses to quash FIR in Jaunpur case

A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar of Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash an FIR against four people accused under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021. As per the complaint filed against the accused, they tried to convert people to Christianity by offering money and free medical care. The HC rejected the plea seeking quashing of the FIR citing that the charges were serious and valid enough for police investigation.

Accused were proselytising in a church

A case was filed against the four accused including a woman in 2023 at the Kerakat Police Station in Jaunpur, UP under Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021, read with Sections 419, 420, 508 of the Indian Penal Code. Police detained the accused after they were caught proselytising a group of villagers at a church in Vikrampur village. When the police entered the church, they saw that a man speaking on a mincrophone was trying to convince the people gathered there to adopt the religion of Jesus Christ.

On seeing the police, the people along with the organisers of the event began to flee. The police seized material relating to religious conversion from the church, including several copies of the Bible, hundreds of pamphlets, envelopes and some musical instruments.

Presuming spiritual superiority of one religion over another goes against secularism: HC

In its order dated May 7, 2025, the High Court observed that presuming moral and spiritual superiority of one religion over another goes against the idea of secularism.

Explaining the intent behind the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021, the Court noted that the object of the legislation is to prevent the religious conversion carried out by adopting infair means. It added that the law sought to prevent exploitation and manipulation that could destabilise social harmony.

The state cannot be a silent spectator says the HC

The High Court justified State intervention in cases of involuntary religious conversions stating that the State cannot be a silent spectator when weaker sections of the society are being targeted for religious conversion. “…unlawful conversion is not only an offence against an individual and their relatives, but also the State- particularly in cases of mass conversion of socially and economically deprived section of the society- when such conversions are carried out through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, fraudulent means, the threat to the societal fabric individuals or communal well-being becomes even more grave. In such circumstances, the State cannot remain a silent spectator,” the court said.

The Expression “aggrieved person” not limited to victim

In this case, the FIR was filed by the Station House Officer (SHO) against the accused. The main issue before the High Court was whether the registration of impuged FIR was the SHO rendered the entire criminal proceedings void ab initio in the light of the use of the words “any aggrieved person” under section 4 of the Act. Addressing the issue, the High Court adopted a broad interpretation for the epression “any aggrieved person” saying that interpreting the words broadly serves the purpose of the Act by expanding the category of individuals who can initiate legal action.

“Applying the principle of purposive interpretation, the undefined term “any aggrieved person” under the unamended Section 4 of the Act, 2021 cannot be interpreted in isolation. Given the statutory context and intent of the enactment, the expression must be construed broadly to include the Station House Officer (S.H.O.), who is legally mandated to maintain public order and is competent under Section 173 of BNSS, 2023 to register FIR for cognizable offences,” the court said.

Religious belief and expression should be volunatry: HC

The High Court emphasised that the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion granted under the Constitution is guided by the word “freely” which underscored the volunatry nature of the religious belief. “The court also held, “India’s constitutional framework guarantees the right to religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. 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,” the High Court explained.

Dismissing the plea, the High Court said that if the applicant did not cooperate with the trial, then the trial court may proceed as per law.

News