Allahabad High Court: In a bail plea by an accused involved in a case under Sections 3 read with Section 5 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (‘Act, 2021’), Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. finds that prima facie this is a case for unlawful religion conversion under the Act of 2021. Thus, the Court refused to grant bail to the accused. Further, the Court said that the Constitution only permits its citizens right to freedom of religion in respect to their professing, practising and propagating its religion. It does not allow or permit any citizen to convert any citizen from one religion to another religion.
Background:
The informant was invited to the house of the co-accused. When he reached there, he saw that many people from the village were there, most of them belonging to the Scheduled Castes community. He was asked to leave Hindu religion and accept Christianity. He was told that once he accepts Christianity, all his pain would come to an end, and he would progress in life. Some of the villagers on the assurance had accepted Christianity and started praying. The informant after making an excuse ran away and informed the Police.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court said that the Constitution confers on everyone the fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate his religion. However, the individual right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be extended to construe a collective right to proselytize; the right to religious freedom belongs equally to the person converting and the individual sought to be converted.
After taking note of Section 3 of the Act, 2021, the Court noted that it prohibits conversion from one religion to another religion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion and allurement. It further states that no person shall abet, convince or conspire such conversion. Further, the Court said that the Constitution clearly envisages and permits its citizens right to freedom of religion in respect to their professing, practising and propagating its religion. It does not allow or permit any citizen to convert any citizen from one religion to another religion.
The Court rejected the argument of the accused that there was no Religion Convertor present when the conversion was taking place, as Section 2(i) only defines “Religion Convertor”, and the Act does not provide that a Religion Convertor should be present when the conversion is taking place.
The Court said that the informant was persuaded to convert to another religion, which is prima facie sufficient to decline bail to the accused as it establishes that a conversion programme was going on where many villagers belonging to Scheduled Castes community were being converted from Hindu religion to Christianity. There is no reason why the informant would rope in the accused, a resident of Andhra Pradesh, falsely in a case of unlawful religion conversion.
The Court finds that prima facie this is a case for unlawful religion conversion under the Act of 2021. Thus, the Court refused to grant bail to the accused.
[Shriniwas Rav Nayak v. State of U.P, 2024 SCC OnLine All 3408, decided on 09-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Applicant: Advocate Patsy David, Advocate Sanju Lata, Advocate Saurabh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party: Government Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
