In a stinging rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh authorities, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has held that neither the distribution of the Bible nor the act of preaching Christianity constitutes an offence under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The Court underscored that the sine qua non for invoking Section 3 of the Act is the presence of a specific person alleging coercion, force, undue influence, misrepresentation, or allurement. The Court’s order—delivered by Justices Abdul Moin and Babita Rani—is one of the clearest judicial statements yet against the misuse of the 2021 anti-conversion law.
The Bench was hearing a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR that accused the petitioners of organising a Christian prayer meeting, distributing Bibles, and attempting to convert Dalits and poor persons. Alongside the conversion charges, the FIR also invoked Sections 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The Court not only cast serious doubt on the FIR, but also reproached the police for swiftly arresting all accused on the very day the FIR was lodged, despite no victim having come forward at that time.
No Victim, No Conversion: FIR has no legal backbone, says Court
The FIR, registered on 17 August 2025 by one Manoj Kumar Singh, alleged that the petitioners had organised a prayer meeting, preached Christian tenets through an LED screen, distributed Bibles, and attempted to convert Dalits and economically vulnerable persons.
However, the Bench—after a close reading of the FIR—observed that:
- No individual had come forward on 17 August 2025 to claim they were being converted.
- The FIR merely recorded that an LED screen and Bibles were present at the site.
- There was no reference to force, misrepresentation, coercion or allurement at the time of registration.
The judges emphasised that distribution of Bibles is not a crime, and preaching a religion is not criminalised anywhere in law. In its order, the Bench held unequivocally that:
“Learned AGA has failed to indicate and obviously would not be able to indicate that distribution of Bible is a crime. Further, even preaching of a religion has not been prescribed as a crime anywhere. Thus, the sine-qua-non to invocation of Section 3 of the Act, 2021 prima facie would be coming forward of a ‘person’ to allege that either he has been converted to any other religion or is being coerced or given some allurement to convert to some other religion which is patently missing at the time of lodging of the FIR.” (Para 15)
Crucially, the judges emphasised that Section 3 of the 2021 Act requires the presence of an actual ‘person’ who alleges coercion, force, undue influence, misrepresentation or allurement. This foundational requirement, they held, was “patently missing” on the date of the FIR.
Two-month silence from alleged victims raises red flags
The State attempted to rely on the supplementary statement of a purported victim recorded on October 25, 2025, claiming that he later mentioned being given an “allurement” to convert.
But the Court underlined two troubling facts:
- His first statement on September 4, 2025 said nothing about conversion,
- The allegation surfaced only after more than two months of the FIR.
The witness’s wife also recorded her statement only on 25 October 2025, mirroring the same unexplained delay.
The Court found this chronology deeply questionable, noting that the very offence alleged in the FIR “has only been supported after more than two months.”
“Interestingly, in the initial statement of Sri Ram Dev recorded on 04.09.2025 he has not indicated anything about any attempt being made to convert him or any allurement etc. having been given which has only come in the subsequent/supplementary statement recorded on 25.10.2025 wherein he has indicated about the allurement. Thus, it is apparent that the offence under the Act, 2021 as indicated in the FIR lodged on 17.08.2025 has only been supported after more than two months on 25.10.2025!” (Para 16)
“Interestingly, even the statement of wife of the witness Sri Ram Dev namely Smt. Nisha had been recorded on 25.10.2025 i.e. after a period of more than two months of the date of the alleged incident indicating the accused asking the petitioners to convert.” (Para 17)
HC: Police “bent themselves backward” to arrest petitioners without any basis
What particularly troubled the Bench was the immediate arrest of all petitioners on the same day the FIR was filed. At that time, there was:
- no victim complaint,
- no allegation of coercion,
- no evidence of conversion, and
- only a recovery of the Bible and an LED screen—neither of which is unlawful.
The judges remarked:
“Even more interesting is that fact that immediately on lodging of the FIR on 17.08.2025 the petitioner(s) have been arrested on the same date. As already indicated above, the statement of the alleged victim has been recorded more than two months later to indicate the alleged offence. Although an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia containing all the facts of the entire evidence rather it is only meant to set the criminal law in motion yet considering that the Act, 2021 is a special Act as such at least the authorities should have applied their mind to the fact that on the date the said incident is committed i.e. 17.08.2025 there was nothing to indicate the commission of the said offence. Thus, it is prima facie apparent that the authorities have bent themselves backward in order to arrest the petitioner(s) even though it is not known as to how the complainant had got information about any offence as alleged in the FIR having come to his knowledge. These are all strange facts which need to be explained by the authorities more particularly when it is the life and liberty of the petitioner(s) which is involved.” (Para 18)
The Court reminded the State of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. (2025), stressing that the 2021 Act is a special law requiring strict, not presumptive, compliance.
Court turns spotlight on complainant’s conduct; issues notice with tough questions
In a rare and telling move, the High Court has issued notice to the complainant—Manoj Kumar Singh—directing him to file a counter-affidavit answering pointed questions:
- Where did you get information about the alleged offence?
- How did you gather a group of people to accompany you?
- If you barged into a private home, what offence did the petitioners commit by stopping you?
- How do offences under Sections 352 and 351(3) BNS apply at all?
- What is your criminal history, if any?
This line of inquiry signals the Court’s concern about possible vigilantism, motivated complaints, and misuse of the conversion law to target religious minorities.
A Clear Judicial Message: Anti-conversion laws cannot be used lightly
Importantly, the Bench issued notice to complainant Manoj Kumar Singh (respondent no. 4) and required him to file a detailed counter-affidavit responding to a series of sharp questions:
- Source of information: From where did he learn of the alleged conversion activity?
- Mobilisation of crowd: How did he gather a group of people to accompany him to the petitioners’ home?
- Unlawful entry: If he forcibly “barged into” a third person’s residence with others, what offence were the petitioners committing by trying to stop him?
- Applicability of BNS charges: How can Sections 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation causing threat of death or grievous hurt) be justified against the accused in such circumstances?
- Criminal history: The Court specifically asked for disclosure of the complainant’s criminal antecedents, if any.
This shift in judicial focus—from accused to complainant—signals the Court’s concern about possible misuse of the conversion law and potential vigilantism. By demanding explanations from both the State and the complainant, the High Court has effectively signalled that the criminal process cannot become a tool for harassment or intimidation in the name of controlling conversions.
Strict Interpretation of Section 3: Conversion requires a specific person alleging harm
The Court reaffirmed that for an offence under Section 3 of the 2021 Act, there must be:
- A person claiming, they were subjected to force, fraud, coercion, undue influence, or allurement;
- A complaint indicating actual or attempted conversion;
- Immediate and credible allegations, not delayed statements recorded months later.
The Court reiterated that:
- Preaching Christianity, installing an LED screen, or holding a prayer meeting does not amount to conversion.
- Distributing the Bible is not an offence.
In the absence of a named victim at the time of the FIR, the statutory ingredients were missing.
Order and next steps
The Court has granted:
- 4 weeks to the State to file its counter-affidavit,
- 2 weeks to the petitioners to file a rejoinder thereafter, and
- will hear the matter afresh after completion of pleadings.
Pending this, the Bench’s observations stand as a significant judicial caution against the weaponisation of conversion laws and arbitrary arrests, while also curbing attempts by private actors to take the law into their own hands.
The complete order may be read here:
Related:
Survey of Churches, anti conversion laws only empower radical mobs: Archbishop Peter Machado