This was the thirteenth occasion on which the petitions have been listed before the Supreme Court. The proceedings arise from a group of writ petitions pending since 2020, raising substantial constitutional questions concerning the scope of freedom of conscience, personal liberty, equality, and the extent of State power to regulate religious conversion and interfaith marriages. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, Advocate Srishti Agnihotri and Advocate Sanjana Thomas are representing CJP, the first and lead petitioner in the case.

Origin and expansion of the challenge

The challenge was first initiated in January 2020, when the Supreme Court issued notice on petitions questioning the constitutional validity of laws enacted by certain States to regulate religious conversion. These early petitions focused on statutes in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh.

Over time, similar laws were enacted in additional States. In 2023, the Supreme Court permitted Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP)—the lead petitioner in the batch—to amend its writ petition to bring within the scope of the proceedings comparable statutes enacted in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka. As a result, the present batch now concerns nine State enactments, each styled as a “Freedom of Religion” or “Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion” law.

The petitions contend that although framed as measures to prevent forced or fraudulent conversions, the impugned statutes impose criminal, procedural, and administrative burdens on the exercise of individual choice in matters of faith and marriage.

Hearing of April 16, 2025: Applications for early hearing and interim relief

A significant procedural development occurred on April 16, 2025, when the Supreme Court heard applications filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace seeking (i) an early hearing of the long-pending petitions and (ii) interim relief in light of continued enforcement of the impugned laws.

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar. The applications were filed against the backdrop of the ongoing operation of the anti-conversion statutes across several States and subsequent legislative amendments, including amendments enhancing penalties and expanding the scope of offences.

Appearing for CJP, Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh submitted that the interim applications were necessitated by the manner in which the laws were being implemented on the ground. It was urged that certain provisions—particularly those relating to prior declarations before conversion, criminalisation of conversion associated with marriage, third-party complaints, and reversal of burden of proof—were resulting in repeated invocation of penal provisions against consenting adults. Singh requested the Court to issue notice on the interim relief application and to stay the operation of the most consequential provisions pending final adjudication.

On behalf of the Union of India, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contested the submission that there were instances of misuse warranting interim relief. In response, the Bench directed Attorney General R. Venkataramani to examine the applications and indicate the Union’s position on the various prayers raised therein, including identifying aspects that may not be opposed.

The Court further directed that States and non-applicants file responses to the interim applications, even in the absence of a formal notice, with a view to ensuring that pleadings are completed expeditiously. The matter was directed to be listed on a non-miscellaneous day, signalling the Court’s intent to take up the applications in a substantive manner.

Details of the proceedings may be read here.

Proceedings of September 16, 2025: Directions on pleadings and de-tagging

The batch of petitions, along with the pending interlocutory applications, came up for consideration on September 16, 2025, before a Bench comprising then Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

At this stage, the Court directed nine respondent States—Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka—to file detailed responses to the applications seeking interim stay of their respective statutes.

The Court granted four weeks’ time to the States to file affidavits in reply and indicated that the matter would be taken up for consideration of interim relief after completion of pleadings. To facilitate the preparation of common compilations and streamline submissions, the Court appointed Advocate Srishti Agnihotri as nodal counsel for the petitioners and Advocate Ruchira Goel as nodal counsel for the respondents.

During the same hearing, the Court considered a separate Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which sought directions for a pan-India law to criminalise religious conversions carried out through deceit or coercion. The Bench clarified that the subject matter of that petition was distinct from the constitutional challenge to existing State enactments and accordingly de-tagged the Upadhyay petition from the present batch.

Detailed proceedings may be read here.

Nature of the impugned statutes

Across the nine States, the impugned laws generally contain provisions that regulate religious conversion through a combination of prior declarations, criminal penalties, and procedural presumptions. The petitioners have argued that these provisions, taken together, create a legal regime in which conversion is treated as inherently suspect, particularly when it occurs in the context of interfaith relationships or marriage.

A central feature of many of the statutes is the requirement that a person intending to convert must give prior notice to a District Magistrate or other designated authority. In several States, this declaration is followed by a police inquiry or verification process, and in some cases, the declaration is required to be publicly displayed. The petitions argue that such requirements subject the exercise of freedom of conscience to prior executive approval, thereby altering the constitutional relationship between the individual and the State.

Another significant feature is the manner in which conversion associated with marriage is addressed. Several statutes presume that conversion undertaken for the purpose of marriage is suspect and may amount to conversion by force, fraud, or allurement. According to the petitioners, this effectively places consensual interfaith marriages under criminal scrutiny, even in the absence of any allegation by the individuals concerned.

The statutes also commonly permit persons other than the allegedly aggrieved individual to lodge complaints, thereby enabling third-party intervention in private relationships. In addition, many of the laws reverse the burden of proof, requiring the accused to demonstrate that a conversion was voluntary, and impose stringent bail conditions that can result in prolonged incarceration.

During the course of the hearings, CJP (petitioners) drew the Court’s attention to legislative amendments and judicial developments relating to individual State statutes.

Particular reference was made to amendments introduced by the State of Uttar Pradesh in 2024 to its Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. It was submitted that these amendments enhanced the penal consequences under the statute, including the introduction of minimum sentences extending to long terms of imprisonment and the imposition of bail conditions similar to those found in special statutes. It was also pointed out that the amendments expanded the category of persons who may lodge complaints under the Act.

The petitioners (CJP) also relied on interim orders passed by High Courts in challenges to similar laws. The Gujarat High Court has stayed the operation of certain provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act on the ground that they impinge upon the right of consenting adults to marry. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stayed provisions requiring prior declaration to the District Magistrate. Appeals against these interim orders are presently pending before the Supreme Court.

Related proceedings and de-tagging of a connected petition

During the September 16, 2025 hearing, the Supreme Court also addressed the status of a petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which sought directions for the enactment of a central law regulating religious conversions. The Court directed that this petition be de-tagged from the present batch, observing that its subject matter was distinct from the challenge to the constitutional validity of existing State enactments.

Submissions on personal liberty and gender concerns

In addition to CJP, several interveners have placed submissions on record. The National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) has raised concerns regarding the impact of these laws on women’s autonomy, particularly in cases involving interfaith relationships. It has been contended that the statutory framework tends to treat adult women as lacking agency in matters of choice, thereby inviting State and familial intervention.

Position as of the latest listing

As of the listing on January 28, 2026, the Supreme Court has not yet heard arguments on the interlocutory applications seeking interim relief, nor has it commenced final hearing on the constitutional validity of the impugned statutes. The matter now stands listed for February 3, 2026.

The outcome of the forthcoming proceedings will determine whether interim directions are issued pending final adjudication of questions that bear on the interpretation of Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution, and on the extent to which the State may regulate religious conversion without infringing upon personal liberty and freedom of conscience.

Below is a table, computed for the CJP’s 2020 petition and presented to the Court, which provides the most egregious sections of the law in some of these states:

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Related:

Unpacking ‘Love Jihad’ and Caste Purity

2024: Love Jihad as a socio-political tool: caste, endogamy, and Hindutva’s dominance over gender and social boundaries in India

CJP’s amended petition allowed, CJP also challenges ‘love jihad’ laws of 5 more states

Join the fight against the love jihad laws

“Love Jihad” laws curb individual and collective freedoms

The post Hearing in batch of CJP-led petitions challenging state Anti-Conversion laws defers in SC; Interim relief applications pending since April 2025 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In an almost routine manner, clearly meant to harass citizens, especially those from marginalised communities who may exercise their personal choices in faith practice or in relationships, the sections applied by the Sri Hemant Yadav, Sub Inspector, Jethwara Police station, district Pratapgarh in the First Information Report dated April 26, 2025 (registered as Case Crime No. 0081 of 2025) was under Sections 5 (1), 8 (2) & 8 (6) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

Sub-Inspector Hemant Yadav, the complainant in the FIR alleged that the petitioner was involved in unlawful religious conversion. In a significant Order by a Constitutional Court, not only did the Judges quash the Order but, after getting to the root of the matter –which clearly appeared to be that a false and motivated FIR had been lodged by the instant Sub-Inspector– the Court held the Principal Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh to account directly him to explain this conduct through filing of a personal affidavit!  What cleared the matters for the Court, was the affidavit in counter filed by private respondents denying the allegations made in the FIR of any coercive conversions etc.

Interim Order of November 20, 2025

The first protective steps taken on November 20, 2025 in which interim Order the Court also stated that failure to file such affidavit before the next date, December 2, 2025 would require the Principal Secretary (Home) to appear in person, with all records of the case, before the Court. While doing so, the Court Observed that such urgent and stringent steps were required to hold the state administration at the highest level to account, as the contents of the FIR “are patently false” and aggrieved persons (citizens) are required to spend precious resources on seeking relief in patently false and motivated prosecutions. The Interim Order also protected the respondent private respondents from any harassment in any manner by the police or administration, warning of strict action were that to happen. (Para 18 of Interim Order)

Para 14 of the Interim Order dated November 20, 2025

Para 14. This Court requires the personal affidavit of the Principal Secretary (Home), Lucknow inasmuch as the Court is already deluged with the other matters which are coming before the Court and once the First Information Report is being filed by an officer of the State which prima facie appears to be false as such, this is a fit case in which the highest officer should file his affidavit indicating as to why the aforesaid First Information Report has been lodged by an officer of the State although the allegations levelled in the said First Information Report are prima facie patently false. However, the aggrieved persons are constrained to approach this Court for the redressal of their grievances whereby spending their valuable money and time and at the same time, the precious judicial time of the Court is also wasted in dealing with such cases which could have been nipped in the bud by the State itself. As such, personal affidavit would also indicate that in case such frivolous cases continue to come to the highest Court of the State as to why exemplary cost should not be imposed against the authorities who have not applied their mind while lodging the First Information Reports under the Act, 2021.

What was especially noteworthy about this case is that private respondents, alleged victims (Respondents No. 5 to 8) appeared before the High Court and filed a short counter affidavit in which they categorically stated that the allegations in the FIR were “absolutely false, concocted, baseless and without any substance“. They submitted, on record, that no incident of inducement, allurement or coercion had taken place and that they were following their religion “as per their own free will”. Details of this counter-affidavit have been recorded by the Allahabad HC in its interim order in the case dated November 20, 2025 (Paras 7 and 8), also reproduced in part in the final order in the matter dated December 2, 2025.

Paras 7 and 8 of the Interim Order of the Allahabad High Court in the Sabir Ali Case:

Para 7. Taking note of the same, in its earlier detailed order [dated N7. On the other hand, Sri Alok Pandey, Advocate who has filed a short counter affidavit today in Court on behalf of the respondents no. 5 to 8 states on the basis of averments contained in the short counter affidavit that the allegations as made in the impugned First Information Report are absolutely false, concocted, baseless and without any su any substance and no incident of religious conversion, inducement, allurement, pressure or coercion has ever taken place with the petitioner or with any of the other alleged victims.

Para 8. It is further submitted that all the private respondents have already been following their religion, social custom and traditions as per their own free will, independently and without interference or pressure from any corner. At no point of time has any of them adopted any other religion as alleged in the impugned First Information Report nor has any such step ever been undertaken or considered by them.

On that date, November 20, 2025, the Court had also expressed strong displeasure over the facts of the case. It also made a prima facie observation that the FIR lodged by the State officer appeared “patently false”. The Bench had then observed that it was ‘deluged’ with such matters and questioned why citizens should be constrained to approach the Court, spending money and time, for cases that “could have been nipped in the bud by the State itself“.

Final Order Quashing the FIR

Finally on December 2, 2025, 14 days ago, the Division Bench recorded in Para 3 that the personal affidavit of the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of UP had been filed. Significantly, the Court observed that, in Para 4 of the Final Order, that, the State of UP conceived that the FIR may be quashed!

Para 4. Even before the averments contained in the said personal affidavit could be considered by the Court, Dr. V.K. Singh, learned Government Advocate, states that the FIR itself may be quashed by this Court.

Considering the aforesaid statement made by Dr. V.K. Singh, the Court quashed the motivated FIR and observed, in a strong observation in Para 7 of the final order dated December 2, 2025, the Allahabad High Court observed:

“However, considering the detailed order of this Court dated 20.11.2025 a note of caution is issued to the State authorities that being the special Act and having it’s stringent provisions the authorities should have to be more cautious in future while registering the FIRs in mimeographic style under the provisions of the Act, 2021”.

(Para 7)

Counsel for the petitioners are/were Akhand Kumar Pandey, Abhishek Singh

Citizens for Justice and Peace (cjp.org.in, CJP) is the lead petitioner in the draconian ‘anti-conversion laws’ passed by those state ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Today, December 16, 2025 the hearing in this matter (WP Criminal Nos 428/2020 and Nos 14/2023) is expected to address the prayer for interim stay on the most egregious provisions. In the 2025 hearings, first on April 16, 2025, and thereafter in September 2025, hearing on the main prayer of the writ petition for declaring the laws passed unconstitutional (early hearing on cases pending since December 2020) and another application filed by CJP, seeking interim relief. After first challenging the 2020-2021 amended laws of Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, the CJP had, in 2023, amended their plea to include similar laws passed in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka. CJP is the lead petitioner in this matter.

The Interim Order of the Allahabad HC dated November 20, 2025 may be read here

The Final Order of the Allahabad HC dated December 2, 2025 may be read here.

[1] Mimeographic refers to “photo-copy” type documents, or documents from a duplicating machine which produces copies from a stencil, now a photo-copier!

Related:

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

United Christian Forum petitions UP Governor Anandiben Patel, express concerns over recent amendment to UP anti-conversion law

Anti-Conversion Laws: Are forced conversions a myth or reality?

The post Allahabad HC: Quashes FIR under draconian UP ‘Anti-Conversion Act’, warns state authorities against lodging ‘Mimeographic Style’ FIRs appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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:

1. His first statement on September 4, 2025 said nothing about conversion,
2. 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:

1. Where did you get information about the alleged offence?
2. How did you gather a group of people to accompany you?
3. If you barged into a private home, what offence did the petitioners commit by stopping you?
4. How do offences under Sections 352 and 351(3) BNS apply at all?
5. 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:

1. Source of information: From where did he learn of the alleged conversion activity?
2. Mobilisation of crowd: How did he gather a group of people to accompany him to the petitioners’ home?
3. 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?
4. 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?
5. 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

Rajasthan: Civil Society demands arrests, rule of law and end to minority targeting under anti-conversion law

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP urges SC to curb misuse of anti-conversion statutes by states

The post Allahabad HC slams overzealous police action, says distributing Bibles or preaching Christianity is not an offence under UP conversion law appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This brief assesses this decision of the Gujarat High Court, which ruled that individuals alleged to be “victims” of wrongful religious conversion could be charged with instigation or abetting, irrespective of any lawful (or not) religious conversion under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003. It also reviews the legal landscape for the law, the history of the interim order issued by the Division Bench in 2021, to the Supreme Court, and contemplates the indications of the recent decision for individual autonomy and minority rights in the Constitution.

The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act was first enacted in 2003 and was reportedly intended to restrict conversions obtained through force, allurement, or fraud. To do this, the Act attempted to restrict conversion by defining the two relevant concepts. “Allurement” is defined broadly to include the providing of material benefit, gifts, or any other means of temptation, while “force” includes not just physical coercion, but social coercion or spiritual coercion. The Act also included certain procedural safeguards and a call for transparency, requiring advance consent from the district magistrate prior to any conversion taking place, and a notice to the district magistrate, after the religious conversion had occurred, regarding the conversion of individuals.

In 2021, the Act was significantly amended, considerably broadening its application. Of particular note was a provision that prohibited conversion engaged in “by marriage,” which meant that any interfaith marriage could potentially be an unlawful conversion and could see criminal consequences. The revised sections (sections 3, 4, 5, 6) elaborated the definitions of unlawful conversion and expanded the consequences, such as longer periods of imprisonment and increased fines, particularly for mass conversions or conversion of vulnerable targets which are minors and Scheduled Castes or Tribes we were physically disadvantaged. Penalizing schemes have also been extended to group converts and not just converts.

Section 3 prohibits conversions through the use of force, allurement, fraud, or marriage, creating a broad ban of both direct actions and indirect inducements involving religious conversion. The later sections 4, 4A, 4B, and 4C, then create specific punishments, voiding any marriage conducted or executed for the purpose of conversion, as well as additional punishments for mass conversion events.

Section 5 establishes punishments for violations, whereas Section 6 establishes a prohibition that prosecutions cannot be made without prior sanction from the district magistrate, ostensibly for frivolous or political motives. Section 6A subsequently reverses the burden of proof, requiring the accused to prove that there was no force or allurement linked to the conversion, effectively reversing one of the cornerstones for criminal law and default criminal procedures.

The impact of these provisions, and most notably for interfaith marriages the criminalizing of conversion by marriage and the reversing the burden of proof, come together to place serious consequences on an interfaith marriage by potentially invalidating the display of an otherwise legitimate marriage if conversion is alleged against either spouse. All of these areas cluster legal implications for individuals, regulating personal choice, religious choice, and marital choice under scrutiny of the State and criminal offenses, thereby restricting voluntary acts of an interfaith marriage and ratcheting-up legal risks.

In conclusion, the legal framework set out by the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act (sections 3 to 6A) constitutes a restrictive legal environment regulating conversions of religion, particularly where the conversions relate to interfaith marriages, through the expansive definitions of conversion that are illegal, strict procedural controls, and broad criminal liability, with important consequences for both individual freedoms and the rights of religious minorities.

In response to the amendments being contested, the state court in Gujarat issued an interim stay on the most controversial provisions of the amendments for cases involving voluntary interfaith couples in August 2021. The court ruled that criminalizing marriages and cohabitation between consenting adults would infringe on the protected constitutional right to marry and choose a partner contained in Article 21. However, the court’s stay injunction on the operation of the amendment provisions was limited to consensual marriages, permitting enforcement of the amendments in circumstances where force, deceit, or allurement were alleged. A different but related process in the Supreme Court of India is considering the larger constitutionality of the intermediaries of religious domination and sexuality with related petitions filed from several states.

The current Gujarat High Court ruling does not negate or contradict the previous stay issued in 2021, but rather limits the scope and application of that ruling. The 2021 stay was issued by a division bench and expressly protected voluntary interfaith marriages from being the subject of criminal proceedings under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, in instances where there has been no allegation of force, fraud, or allurement. The current ruling deals with a vastly different set of facts and law: in the current case, individuals have been converted (allegedly by inducement or coercion) to a different religion and are implicated in converting others to that religion through means of influencing, coercing, or allurement, often by way of material incentives or social pressure.

The High Court distinctly affirmed that such individuals were not “victims” but instead that they were offenders. The Court explained that even if they were initially converted by force or some allurement and were thus victims, if they engaged in further abetting others either indirectly or directly, then they would be committing a new and separate offence under the Act. The judgement explains that “had those persons, after getting converted, not engaged in any activity of further converting other persons, they could have been said to be victims of conversion. However, on account of their act of influencing and pressuring and alluring other persons to convert… a prima facie offence is made out against them.” In essence, the Court is laying down a clear principle that victimhood does not confer immunity if the individual chooses to act as a direct participant in further conversions.

This line of thinking undermines the conventional legal and moral separation between victims and offenders. Practically, it means any person who may have been coerced (through any means) or manipulated (regardless of the instrument of coercion) into converting can be potentially prosecuted, if they are (even in a minor way) later found to have converted others themselves—even due to social coercion. The risk of this reasoning is that it could potentially spread the net of criminality too wide-reaching, especially with respect to group conversions in closely connected or marginalized communities, where social ties or economic ties or familial ties may have led individuals to join in the group conversion.

From a constitutional standpoint, this raises profound challenges stemming from Article 25 (freedom of religion), and Article 21 (right to autonomy and to marry). The law’s broad definitions and the reversal of the burden of proof (Section 6A) put accused persons, who are often poor or socially vulnerable, at a disadvantage in defending themselves. It is also likely to deter proper practices of religious expression or voluntary religious association. The Supreme Court – as it reviews the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws in general – will ultimately need to address whether this expansion of liability is proper and consistent with fundamental rights or, alternatively, provides space for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement against minorities and interfaith couples.

From a constitutional perspective this raises many challenges stemming from Article 21 to Article 25. The law’s reversal of the burden of proof in Section 6A as well puts accused persons who are often socially and financially vulnerable at a great disadvantage in defending themselves which makes it more likely to deter proper practice of religious expressions.

In conclusion, the ruling of the Gujarat High Court in 2025 ventures into uncertain new ground with respect to India’s law regarding conversion by making even so-called “victims” prosecutable if they subsequently aid someone’s conversion. While distinguishing, and not overruling, the prior stay for voluntary interfaith couples, the Court’s decision expands the law’s reach and increases the stakes for individual rights, particularly among minorities and the entire category of vulnerable people. As the Supreme Court now considers and reviews these statutes, it is possible that the ultimate fate of religious freedom in India, as well as the fate of personal autonomy and procedural fairness, rests in the balance.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Urvi Kehri)

Sources: 

1. https://sabrangindia.in/sc-issues-notice-guj-govt-plea-against-hc-stay-anti-conversion-law/
2. https://sabrangindia.in/guj-hc-refuses-remove-stay-sec-5-anti-conversion-law/
3. https://sabrangindia.in/anti-conversion-law-will-not-apply-inter-faith-marriages-unless-there-force-fraud/
4. https://www.opindia.com/2025/10/gujarat-hc-rejects-argument-that-converted-muslims-cant-be-accused-of-forcing-others-to-convert/
5. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/victims-of-religious-conversion-can-be-booked-for-offence-if-they-induce-others-to-convert-gujarat-hc-10295684/
6. https://www.barandbench.com/news/forced-religious-conversions-converts-can-be-booked-if-they-lure-others-to-change-religion-says-gujarat-hc
7. https://lawtrend.in/gujarat-hc-victims-of-religious-conversion-can-also-face-prosecution-if-they-later-convert-others/
8. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/victims-of-religious-conversion-can-be-booked-for-offence-if-they-induce-others-to-convert-gujarat-hc-10295684/

Related:

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

CJP plea against anti-conversion laws: SC seeks to know status of cases challenging ‘anti conversion’ laws in HCs

CJP, other rights groups challenge Maharashtra Govt GR setting up a Committee to “monitor inter-faith marriages”

The post From Victim to Accused: High Court of Gujarat’s 2025 Ruling on Religious Conversion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Bench and the proceedings

The matter came up before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, which was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of religious conversion laws enacted by Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka.

The illusion of ‘Love Jihad’ has led violence and intimidation by police and non-state actors. The Anti-Conversion laws legitimise un-constitutional, anti-minority and misogynistic beliefs, and help further the hateful, communal agenda of extremists. CJP is challenging these laws as they impinge upon the privacy, freedoms and autonomy of consenting adults. Help CJP fight for equality and choice. Donate now to keep #LoveAzaad.

The Bench granted four weeks’ time to the States to file their affidavits in reply and fixed the matter for consideration after six weeks. Allowing for all the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioners, including Citizens for Justice and Peace, the Court also appointed Advocate Srishti Agnihotri as nodal counsel for the petitioners and Advocate Ruchira Goel for the respondents to facilitate preparation of compilations.

At the same time, the Court de-tagged a Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking a pan-India law to criminalise religious conversions carried out through deceit or coercion. CJI Gavai clarified that while the present proceedings examine the constitutionality of State enactments, Upadhyay’s plea was of a different nature and thus could not be heard together.

Petitioners’ Submissions: Harsh punishments, vigilantism, and targeting of interfaith couples

Appearing for lead petitioner Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh stressed that there was great urgency in granting interim protection because several States were not only enforcing existing laws but also amending them to make them harsher.

Singh highlighted the 2024 amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, which prescribes a minimum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment, for conversion through marriage deemed unlawful. Bail under this provision has been tied to the “twin conditions” regime, akin to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), making release on bail nearly impossible.

He further noted that the law permits third parties to file complaints, which has emboldened vigilante mobs to harass couples in interfaith marriages or even those merely participating in religious observances and church services. “These so-called ‘Freedom of Religion’ laws are being weaponised against minorities and those in interfaith marriages,” Singh submitted.

Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW), echoed these concerns, pointing to the Uttar Pradesh and Haryana laws, and confirmed that her client too has filed an application specifically seeking stay of their operation.

Singh also drew the Court’s attention to the fact that Rajasthan has recently enacted a similar law, demonstrating the growing trend of States passing such statutes.

Context of earlier High Court orders

The Bench was reminded that both the Gujarat High Court (2021) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court had granted partial stays on certain provisions of their respective anti-conversion laws, holding them to be prima facie unconstitutional.

• The Gujarat High Court had stayed provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021, noting that they intruded into the domain of marriage and personal choice, thus violating Article 21.
• The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dealing with the MP Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, restrained the State from prosecuting adults marrying of their own volition and stayed the requirement under Section 10 (prior declaration before the District Magistrate before conversion).

Both these States have since appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the interim orders of their High Courts.

Intervention by other petitioners

The hearing also saw appearances by Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, Sanjay Hegde, MR Shamshad, Sanjay Parikh, and others, all representing parties opposing the anti-conversion laws.

Singh urged that the Court must urgently stay the operation of the laws across States, given the severe chilling effect they are having on religious freedom and interfaith marriages.

When Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay pressed for his plea seeking a blanket pan-India law against deceitful conversions, CJI Gavai responded sharply:

• “Who will decide if a conversion is deceitful?”
• Singh intervened, pointing out that the Upadhyay petition was entirely different in nature since the present challenge is to the validity of existing State laws.
• The Court then formally de-tagged Upadhyay’s petition from the ongoing proceedings.

CJP’s previous submissions on weaponisation of laws

On April 16, during the previous hearing, before the bench of the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Singh had also underlined that an interim application has been filed specifically highlighting incidents of weaponisation of these laws. He argued that “again and again, these laws are being invoked to harass minorities,” and urged that the Supreme Court issue notice on this application.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, had contested this claim, stating: “My Lords, there are no such instances.”

The then CJI asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani to consider the applications filed by the petitioners and clarify to the Court where the Union has objections and where it does not, to ensure expedited hearings.

The Court then passed an order permitting States and non-applicants to file responses to these applications even if no formal notice had been issued, in order to speed up completion of pleadings.

Details may be read here.

Background of the challenge

The litigation traces back to January 2020, when a Bench led by then CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha first issued notice on these petitions. Subsequently, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind moved a transfer petition seeking consolidation of all challenges pending before six different High Courts—Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh—before the Supreme Court.

CJP’s central contention is that these laws violate Articles 21 and 25, impinging upon individual liberty, the right to privacy, and the right to freedom of conscience and religion. They argue that the requirement of state approval or prior intimation before conversion is an unconstitutional burden and exposes individuals to harassment, communal targeting, and violence. Reliance is placed on precedents like KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan KM (2018), which uphold privacy, autonomy, and the right to marry a partner of one’s choice.

The petitions also emphasise that such laws are rooted in conspiracy theories like “love jihad”, and effectively deputise vigilante groups to police interfaith relationships.

Today’s order

Summarising today’s hearing, the Court ordered:

• States to file their responses within four weeks.
• Matter to be listed after six weeks for consideration of stay applications.
• Nodal counsels appointed to streamline compilations.
• Ashwini Upadhyay’s petition de-tagged.
• Pleadings to be completed swiftly, with the Attorney General asked to assist on which applications the Union may or may not oppose.

The Court made it clear that it will consider the petitioners’ prayer for staying the operation of these laws after six weeks, once responses from States and the Union are on record.

Detailed reports may be read here and here.

Related:

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

CJP plea against anti-conversion laws: SC seeks to know status of cases challenging ‘anti conversion’ laws in HCs

CJP, other rights groups challenge Maharashtra Govt GR setting up a Committee to “monitor inter-faith marriages”

The post Supreme Court seeks states’ replies on pleas for stay of anti-conversion laws, to decide on interim stay after six weeks appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“I live in a madaiya (basic hut). What can I lure people with? If I had Rs 30,000 to spare, wouldn’t I use it to change my own life first, before distributing it to others?” asked Shankar wryly.

Shankar lives in a tiny one-room shack in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. To make more living space, he has erected a tin-roof shed in the adjoining area. The shed does not have proper walls; plastic sheets and bedsheets form a makeshift enclosure. The floor of a part of the shed also serves as a kitchen.

In 2021, 60-year-old Shankar was booked under The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 on the charge of converting poor Hindus in a locality in Azamgarh to Christianity by offering them money and promising to free them from the grip of ‘evil spirits’.

In addition to that, he faced the allegation of hurting religious sentiments by insulting Hindu goddesses and deities. The action against him was taken on the complaint of a right-wing activist linked to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

After a three-year-long legal battle, a court in Azamgarh in September 2024 acquitted him of the charge of unlawful conversion. The court found the charge to be dubious and said that the investigation by the police was riddled with illegalities and contradictions.

The judge, however, held Shankar guilty of hurting religious sentiments. Shankar was out on bail after having spent six months in prison when the 19-page verdict was delivered.

Considering his age and rural social background, the court decided against sending him back to prison and ordered his release on probation for a year.

Shankar’s conviction under Indian Penal Code Sections 298 (deliberately hurting someone’s religious feelings) and 504 (intentional insults that provoke others to break public peace) tainted his legal record in the autumn of his life but in the larger scheme of things, he stood vindicated. The main accusation of unlawful conversion was proven to be false.

“Truth prevailed. Talking about someone (Jesus Christ) does not amount to conversion. And the allegation of talking ill of Hindu deities was also baseless. All lies,” said Shankar.

Changing allegations

The criminal case against him was lodged on August 31, 2021, nine months after the Yogi Adityanath-led Bharatiya Janata Party government in Uttar Pradesh armed itself with a stringent new law that made religious conversion a non-bailable offence inviting up to 10 years in prison if found to be effected for marriage or through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or other allegedly fraudulent means. The vagueness of the offence under the law blurred the lines between what could be deemed as lawful conversion and what was considered illegal. These features opened doors for vigilante groups as well as the police to harass people.

Last year, the government amended the law to make it even more oppressive by increasing the maximum punishment from 10 years to life imprisonment, further empowering vigilante groups by allowing “any person” to file a complaint, and making the process of securing bail even more difficult.

Ever since the law came into force late in 2020, it has become routine for right-wing activists linked to the ruling saffron ideology to lodge FIRs against Muslims as well as “lower”-caste Hindus perceived to be practicing Christian traditions or deviating from traditional Hinduism. Most of these cases are based on general allegations and flimsy evidence, as part of a concerted strategy to harass individuals and groups from the minority and marginalised communities.

Shankar’s was a typical case.

The FIR against him was lodged on the complaint of one Jittu Sonkar, a fruit seller and right-wing activist from Azamgarh associated with several arms of the Sangh parivar. Sonkar, a Dalit like Shankar, alleged that an unidentified person had been visiting his locality Sarai Mandraj for three months and was promising people that he would “remove the obstacles of ghosts and spirits” from their lives. The man, whom Sonkar later identified as Shankar, was allegedly also active in a Dalit basti in the neighbouring locality of Kartalpur where he was “converting” people to Christianity by enrapturing them with his “illusions” and through other allurements.

Sonkar alleged that on August 31, 2021 – a Tuesday – at around 10 am, he found Shankar distributing Bibles and other Christian religious books to people in his locality. Shankar was also using “obscene” language to insult Hindu deities and goddesses, alleged Sonkar. When the locals objected to his language, Sonkar further alleged in his complaint, Shankar offered each of them an “allurement” of Rs 500 and mentioned that if they accepted Christianity, “Prabhu Ishu” (Jesus) would rid them of all their “suffering and penury”.

Later, while testifying in a trial court, Sonkar made a new allegation that Shankar had offered him Rs 30,000 to convert to Christianity. He claimed that Shankar used to convert people at the house of a local resident, Nirmala Devi. Sonkar said Shankar and Nirmal Devi called him to the house so that they could exorcise him. When he reached the house, the duo was already engaged in prayers and were converting several women to Christianity, he alleged. They offered him Rs 30,000 to accept Christianity but when he objected and rejected their money, they abused him with casteist slurs related to his Khatik background, Sonkar alleged. Khatik is Dalit sub-caste in Uttar Pradesh.

A life built on faith

Shankar has a different memory of the day. But to accurately grasp the circumstances behind the allegations against him, it is important to take into account his background. Shankar belongs to the Chamar Dalit community Over the last two decades, especially after his marriage, he had started committing himself to Jesus Christ, although he did not formally change his religion. He was exposed to the faith and the message of Jesus after coming in touch with two pastors.

When he was not pushing bricks, sand, stones or cement on trolleys at construction sites, he was engaged in ‘seva’ (selfless acts in the cause of faith) and prayer services for Jesus. Superstition and belief in unscientific methods of cure for ailments and distress are an inextricable element of this system of faith-based healing.

Many believers have over the years started their own prayer centres dedicated to Jesus in the region and even hold large events. But some, like Shankar, who lack the resources, prefer to provide home services and convene smaller sessions.  People, whether aggrieved by ailments, financial distress or ‘evil’ spirits, would invite Shankar to conduct such prayers and healing sessions in the privacy of their homes. A part of his work involved travelling from Varanasi to Azamgarh, a more than two-hour journey he often made on a motorcycle.

On August 31, 2021, Shankar said he had gone to Nirmala Devi’s house in Azamgarh to conduct a prayer for a 15-year-old girl who had been “troubled by evil forces” for the last four years. Word has spread how Shankar had earlier ‘cured’ a woman who was ‘possessed by evil spirits’ and Nirmala Devi looked towards him for relief.  Shankar claimed that many families had stopped going to the events and satsangs of other Hindu spiritual gurus, and instead turned to Kaleeshias or Christian prayer centres, after they came in touch with him. This had annoyed the Hindutva elements in the region, he said.  “We only go there to pray. Parmeshwar (supreme being) does the rest,” said Shankar, when I asked him to explain how he rid people of their afflictions.

Shankar carried a small donation box to such events. Since he usually visited poor households, the donations were nominal. On the day of the incident, Shankar was at Nirmala Devi’s residence when two strangers appeared there unannounced and walked in. Meanwhile, their associates waited outside. “One of those men started turning the pages of a Bible and said that he wanted to join the prayers. The second person started shooting a video of us. They left after a couple of minutes but soon returned with a larger group of people from a Hindu organisation and accused me of conversion,” Shankar said.

Shankar usually did his prayer services on Tuesdays. And on days when he was not available, his son Ujjwal, who works in a photo design store, would fill in. “My father was targeted. People like Jittu Sonkar would come to his meetings and carefully observe things. These people would often taunt us and say, ‘If you are a Hindu, why do you believe in Christ? If you want to worship Christ, adopt a Christian name and give up reservation,’” said Ujjwal. He believes that Hindutva elements mostly harass people from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities with such laws. “It’s mostly the lower caste people who are attracted towards Christianity,” said Ujjwal.

An unconvincing story

The Adityanath government-backed prosecution team produced four witnesses against Shankar: Sonkar himself; a locally-renowned dermatologist and office-bearer of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Parijat Barnwal; Sonkar’s friend Rajan Chaubey; and the investigating officer of the case, sub-inspector Shivkumar Kushwaha.

The police claimed to have recovered 12 religious texts, including a book of Bhojpuri devotional songs about Christ, copies of the Bible and some other documents, and a single Rs 100 note from Shankar.

During the trial, Shankar pointed out that the only two public witnesses in the case were Sonkar’s friends. One of them, Rajan Chaubey, was the person who actually drafted the FIR which was dictated to him by Sonkar. The trial judge took note of this and ruled the FIR to be “suspicious” as he found several contradictions in its content.

Shankar also produced his government-authorised Hindu Scheduled Caste certificate in court to prove that he had not converted to any other religion and was therefore not authorised to carry out conversions to Christianity.

The government lawyer argued that religious conversion was not just “against religious freedom and rights” but was also a “threat to the nation’s security”. “If conversion is not stopped, that day is not far when the majority community will become a minority,” said district government counsel Priyadarshi Piyush Tripathi, repeating the controversial statement made by Allahabad high court judge Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal in July last year while rejecting bail for a person who faced allegations similar to those against Shankar. The Supreme Court later barred the usage or citation of Justice Agarwal’s controversial words.

Azamgarh sessions judge Sanjeev Shukla found the prosecution’s story and the police investigation to be faulty and full of contradictions.

“The prosecution story is replete with inconsistencies, errors and contradictions. It does not stand the test of credibility and therefore appears doubtful,” he said in his order.

The judge underlined the contradictions in the monetary inducements allegedly offered by Shankar. While in the FIR, Sonkar said Shankar offered people Rs 500 each, in his court testimony he said he had received a personal offer of Rs 30,000. There was no clear or documentary evidence of any monetary allurement, noted Judge Shukla.

Sonkar also contradicted the version of the police investigation officer when it came to the alleged recovery of religious material. While Sonkar told the court that no money or item was recovered from Shankar at the time of his arrest at 11 am on August 31, 2021 the investigating officer sub-inspector Kushwaha in his inventory of arrest and recovery produced in court showed Shankar to be taken under arrest a day later, on September 1, with 12 religious books in his possession. Even though the officer claimed that Shankar was arrested from a public place (Kartalpur trijunction), he failed to produce a single independent witness of the event, only presenting two of his subordinates, constables Sandeep Singh and Pawan Kumar, as witnesses.

Judge Shukla noted that the police did not act as per the rules, making the prosecution story “dubious”. The judge also found the recovery and arrest memo, which had no signatures, to be suspicious as the investigation officer was himself a witness in the case. There were no independent witnesses.

While convicting Shankar for hurting religious sentiments, the court relied on the testimonies of Sonkar and Barnwal, the Azamgarh doctor.

Fear of the police and vigilante groups has impacted Shankar’s spiritual and religious life. It practically put a hold on his prayer meetings and ‘seva’ sessions, and he mostly stays home now.

But the ordeal has failed to diminish his conviction about faith. “It is the Collector’s job to issue conversion certificates to people. Having faith and becoming a Christian are two different things. We are vishwasi (believers), not Isai (Christians),” he said.

*Name changed to protect the victim’s anonymity.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post How the False Conversion Case Against This Dalit Labourer Fell Apart appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Expressing its concerns over the recent amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (aka UP anti-conversion law), United Christian Forum (UCF) has submitted a detailed memorandum to UP Governor Anandiben Patel highlighting the misuse of the law by right-wing extremists and alleged police bias. The Forum, on August 19, also demanded that the legislation be repealed as well as the recent amendment to the law, which was passed by the UP legislature this month.

The memo titled, “Memorandum pertaining to Concerns Regarding the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2024” said that it aims to draw the Governor’s attention to  the stringent measures proposed under the recent amendment bill against fraudulent or forced religious conversions; the role of police in colluding with Hindutva groups whilst turning a blind eye to offenses committed against Christians, and “the correlation between increased violence and the enactment of the anti-conversion laws.”

UCF pointed out that in many cases false complaints under the anti-conversion law were filed against members of minority communities by third parties who were not related in any way to the alleged victims of fraudulent conversions, thus revealing the communal agenda behind such harassment tactics. The memorandum also conveyed its worry over the recent amendment bill to the UP anti-conversion law and observed that “The broad and ambiguous language of the Bill emboldens individuals and groups to target religious minorities under the pretext of preventing fraudulent conversions. The provision allowing ‘any person’ to lodge a complaint widens the door to accusations driven by personal, political, or communal biases, leading to a wave of violence and harassment against these communities.”

The representation also referred to the study published by Article 14 wherein the latter analysed over 100 FIRs filed under the UP anti-conversion law and found out that 63 of them were registered by third-parties, including 26 from extremist groups. The memorandum said that the terms like “force, fraud, and allurement” remain undefined and vague under the law, with a possibility of categorising “any collective gathering of Christians… as an attempt to allure people to Christianity.”

The Forum maintained that existing criminal laws are already equipped to handle cases related to fraudulent and/or forced conversion, “yet the Bill imposes disproportionately severe penalties under the guise of preventing unlawful conversions.” The memo further cited media reports to highlight weaponisation of anti-conversion laws by mob and police to target religious minorities, wherein false cases linger for years against accused even as legal costs continue to grow, thus resulting in violation of accused’s right to life and liberty.

False and third-party complaints

In its memorandum, UCF provided details about several complaints which it claimed were either false, filed by third party, or involved police complicity. The details of these complaints and related FIRs can be found below:

1. Sonbhadra: FIR No. 0269/2023

Details of the case: On November 29, 2023, in Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh, 22 individuals were apprehended by the police with arrests made across various police stations in the district. The charges against the pastors include allegations under the Uttar Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 with a total of 42 individuals implicated in the said. The complainant’s status as a leader of a fundamentalist group suggests that the FIR against the 42 pastors is driven by motives.

The copy of the complaint/FIR can be found here:

2. Azamgarh: FIR No. 0286/2022

Details of the case: On July 30, 2022, six Dalit women were arrested in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh while celebrating a child’s birthday – the son of one of the ladies. Local extremists witnessed the congregants praying for the child and reported it as an event where forced conversion was being carried out. All six women were booked under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The copy of the complaint/FIR can be found here:

3. Maharajganj: FIR No. 0410/2023

Details of the case: On August 20, 2023, Santosh Nishad from Maharajganj District in Uttar Pradesh was hosting a prayer gathering and get-together at his house when a group of approximately 10 individuals trespassed his property and physically assaulted him, accusing him of engaging in fraudulent religious conversions. On the evening of August 21, Pastor Santosh was taken into custody at the Nichlaul police station. The said FIR was registered under IPC sections 323 and 506 and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 leading to his imprisonment. Pertinently, the complainant later testified in the Maharajganj Sessions Court that he had been coerced into filing a complaint against the accused.

The copy of the complaint/FIR can be found here:

4. Azamgarh: FIR No. 0370/2022 

Details of the case: On November 23, 2022, a complaint was lodged in the Azamgarh district, alleging fraudulent religious conversions by Prashant Singh as the complainant, who claims to be a leader of the Bajrang Dal. As a result, the said FIR was registered under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, naming Harkhuram and Achhelal as the accused. Achhelal Rahi was subsequently placed in judicial custody on November 24, 2022. Notably, Harkhuram, one of the accused in the FIR, had passed away 12 years earlier.

The copy of the complaint/FIR can be found here:

5. Azamgarh: FIR No. 0397/2023

Details of the case: On September 10, 2023, in a village in Azamgarh, a prayer meeting was abruptly interrupted when a neighbour falsely accused them of religious conversion. The police swiftly arrested Brijesh, Parmeshwar, and Poonam Yadav, the wife of Brijesh Yadav. Poonam, who was three months pregnant, was taken into custody along with her innocent one-year-old daughter. They were all charged under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and the said FIR was registered against them.

The copy of the complaint/FIR can be found here:

6. Ayodhya: FIR No. 0206/2024

Details of the case: On June 23, 2024, Sarju Prasad was illegally detained for almost 48 hours without the registration of an FIR when a prayer gathering at his home was disrupted in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, by journalists alleging fraudulent religious conversions by the police. The two online complaints were filed alerting the police regarding this illegal detention, accompanied by tweets addressing the police regarding this incident. The FIR bearing number 0206/2024 at Police Station Cantonment under the anti-conversion law was subsequently filed against him on June 26, 2024, and was he subsequently arrested and has been in judicial custody since then.

The copy of the complaint/FIR can be found here:

Conclusion

Even as the Forum highlighted the grievous violence and atrocities that have been committed against the Christian community, it also suggested several recommendations to Governor Anandiben Patel to ameliorate the situation. Its recommendations include:

1. Repealing the existing Anti-Conversion Law
2. Suspension of the 2024 Amendment Bill
3. Strengthening training for the police and judicial officers: Enforcement of comprehensive training programs for police personnel and judicial officers focused on safeguarding religious freedoms, handling complaints ethically, and conducting unbiased investigations.
4. Victim support in cases of false complaints: Establishment of support systems for individuals wrongfully accused, including legal assistance and psychological counselling to mitigate the trauma and financial impact of such actions.
5. Strengthening Community Relations: Undertaking initiatives that strengthen community relations and promote tolerance among different religious groups instead of using punitive legislation which may exacerbate communal tension.
6. Public Awareness and Education: The Government to prioritize public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about the constitutional rights related to religious freedom and the importance of respecting diversity.

The copy of the memorandum can be found here:

Related:

United Christian Forum submits detailed memorandum to Minority Affairs minister Kiren Rijiju highlighting targeted violence against Christian Community; demands repeal of anti-conversion laws | SabrangIndia

Sharp increase in violence against Christians, 161 incidents of violence in 75 days of 2024 | SabrangIndia

Environment of targeted hate and violence against Christians: Report | SabrangIndia

The post United Christian Forum submits memorandum to UP Governor Anandiben Patel; demands repeal of UP anti-conversion law and its recent amendment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The statement of the reasons for the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2024 notes that “Keeping in mind the sensitivity and seriousness of the crime of illegal religious conversion, the dignity and social status of women, and the organised and planned activities of foreign and anti-national elements and organisations in illegal religious conversion and demographic change, it has been felt that the amount of fine and penalty provided in the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act should be increased and the bail conditions should be made as stringent as possible”.

Earlier, Section 4 of the Act read, “Any aggrieved person, his/her parents, brother, sister, or any other person who is related to him/her by blood, marriage or adoption may lodge a First Information Report of such conversion which contravenes the provisions of section 3.” With the latest amendment, the provision has been changed to include “any person”, thus even unknown people, not related to the person in question can file complaint on their behalf. This can potentially lead to misuse of the provision, especially by right-wing groups, who often target minorities in an avowedly self-righteous manner.

The bill has also added provision to punish anyone using foreign funding for the purpose of religious conversion. The new provision added to the law states that “whoever receives money from any foreign or illegal institution in connection with unlawful religious conversion shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to 14 years, and shall also be liable to pay a minimum fine of Rs 10 lakh.”, the Indian Express reported.

Similarly, before the amendment, Section 5 (1) of the Act read, “Provided that whoever contravenes the provisions of section 3 in respect of a’ minor, a woman or a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall be not less than rupees twenty five thousand”. The maximum punishment under this provision has now been increased to 14 years imprisonment and a fine not less than 1 lakh rupees. A cognate provision dealing with mass conversion under the unamended law provided a maximum punishment of 10 years with a minimum rupees fifty thousand fine, which has now been increased to maximum imprisonment of 14 years with a minimum fine of 1 lakh rupees.

Most significantly, bail restricting provision is also added to the law, which is quite similar to the extraordinary laws like UAPA and PMLA. The added sub-provision to Section 7 of the Act reads, “A person accused of any offence punishable under the Act, if in custody, shall not be released on bail unless the public prosecutor is given an opportunity of opposing the application for bail for such release, or where the public prosecutor opposes the application for bail, the session court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that no offence can be committed by him while on bail”. This additional qualification for securing bail could discourage courts from granting bail to the accused under the law, with a high possibility of such accused languishing in jails as undertrials. Given the fact that the existing law already reverses the burden of prove, the new amendments would further disempower accused under the law which says that the “burden of proof as to whether a religious conversion was not effected through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage, lies on the person who has caused the conversion and, where such conversion has been facilitated by any person, on such other person.”

Notably, Citizens for Justice and Peace is the lead petitioner that has challenged the 2021 Uttar Pradesh Anti-Conversion law and similar laws passed in eight other states. The first petition challenging the anti-conversion laws of was filed in December 2020, which argued against the constitutionality of these laws enacted by the states of Uttar Pradesh (which initially issued it through an ordinance before enacting the Act), Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh (WP Criminal Nos 428/2020). In December 2021, it filed another petition, this time challenging the similar laws passed by Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Haryana and Karnataka (WP Criminal Nos 14/2023). CJP has argued that the said laws are violative of Article 14 (due process), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 25 (freedom of conscience and religion), and therefore unconstitutional.

Related:

Allahabad HC: Repeated rejection of police protection pleas of interfaith couples, here’s why this is problematic | CJP

Allahabad HC rejects bail plea in alleged conversion case; stating Article 25 does not provide right to convert religion | CJP

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws | CJP

RightsCast: How India’s anti-conversion Laws are linked to the weaponization of the state administration | CJP

The post UP passes draconian amendments to its anti-conversion law with stringent bail provision and maximum sentence of life imprisonment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The arrested people have been identified as Father Dominic Pinto, Dharmaraj, Surendra, Ghanshyam Gautam, Pawan, Suraj, and Sarju Prasad, with all, except Father Pinto, coming from Ayodhya. The authorities have launched an investigation and registered a case against them under relevant sections of the anti-conversion law, the Uttar Pradesh Unlawful Religious Conversion Prohibition Act, 2021, and the Indian Penal Code.

According to the report, the police were told about the alleged event by Hindutva outfits of the area. Vishwa Hindu Parishad district chief Brijesh Kumar Vaish and Bajrang Dal district convener Akhand Pratap Singh had reportedly made the first complaint. A complaint has alleged that conversion efforts were reportedly organised by one Father Pinto at the Navinta Prayer Centre and Church near St Matthew’s College in Barabanki.

However, claims of conversion are actually criticised by activists and scholars as something that has been used by right-wing groups as dog whistles very often. In an interview with Sabrang India earlier in 2023, Mr. AC Michael, the National Coordinator for the United Christian Forum, an advocacy group based in New Delhi, addressed the claims of mass conversions Christians are accused of. He stated that the government or courts of law must substantiate claims of alleged forceful conversions with concrete proof, data, and numbers. Mr. Michael mentioned how innocent victims are being unjustly arrested on charges of forceful conversion, despite a lack of supporting data. He also further stated there is a decline in the Christian population, and also pointed out that despite allegations of conversions, official government population censuses have consistently reported a stable Christian population.

The Christian community has consistently called on the government to address the acts of vigilante violence against Churches and Christians by Hindutva outfits across the country. After the recent acts of violence by Hindutva men against Christian communities in Madhya Pradesh’s Jhabua on January 21, which included the reportedly forced hoisting of saffron flags on the rooftops of four churches, leaders within the community came together to urge for heightened security measures.

Furthermore, according to a statement from the United Christian Forum on December 14, an average of two Christians face attacks every day in India. The report highlighted a disturbing trend, citing a total of 687 reported incidents of violence against Christians in 2023. Notably, the majority of these incidents, totalling to more than 531, occurred in North Indian states, with Uttar Pradesh seeing about 287 attacks, Chhattisgarh 148 and Jharkhand and Haryana at 49 and 47, being among the most affected regions.

Related:

Indian Christian community faces persistent attacks in first 10 days in 2024

Irony of 2023: High persecution of Christians, PM hailed by some religious leaders

Amidst festive cheer, India’s Christian community confronts prejudice and intolerance

Hindutva’s “rice bag converts” controversy

The post UP Police arrest 10 after Hindutva outfits reportedly complained about conversion racket appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Prosecution had levelled serious charges against all four accused, alleging that they engaged in activities that posed a threat to the nation’s interests. Their purported actions involved orchestrating large-scale conversions of individuals within the state of Uttar Pradesh, persuading them to convert from Hinduism to Islam through extensive promotion of the Islamic faith. Furthermore, the appellants are said to have provided rehabilitation and support to the converted individuals.

It was in 2021, the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) arrested these individuals and accused them of generating a substantial fund to finance their conversion activities, which constitutes an offense under the ambit of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. They were also charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups), 153-B (assertions prejudicial to national integration), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 417 (punishment for cheating), 298 (uttering words with the deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), 121A (conspiring to commit certain offenses), 123 (concealing with intent to facilitate design to wage war), and the Sections 3/5/8 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

After hearing the arguments presented by both parties and thoroughly examining the case records, the Court observed that during the initial stage, an FIR was filed against three specific accused individuals and several unidentified persons in connection with the alleged racket. Notably, the four appellants were not mentioned in that same FIR. The Court further took note of the fact that, upon the conclusion of the investigation, a police report in the form of a charge sheet was submitted before the competent court. Subsequently, the court took cognisance of the matter and framed charges against the appellants and other co-accused persons, and the trial is currently underway.

Considering these circumstances and taking into account the fact that their co-accused have already been granted bail by both the Supreme Court and the High Court, the Court granted bail to the appellants based on their pleas.

The Uttar Pradesh Anti-conversion law, currently under challenge in the Supreme Court, is a clear infringement on the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Disguised as a measure to maintain public order, the law, first enacted as an ordinance has severely diluted the essence of Article 25, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion. Moreover, it directly violates Article 21 of the Constitution, encroaching upon the right to marry, the right to privacy, and the right to personal autonomy. One of the most troubling aspects of the statute is its presumption of guilt rather than innocence. In India’s legal system, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but this ordinance reverses that principle by presuming those involved in proselytization as guilty from the outset. Furthermore, when applying tests of hostile discrimination and manifest arbitrariness, it becomes evident that the ordinance fails to treat all citizens equally before the law. It creates a discriminatory environment where certain vulnerable groups, such as economically weak, marginalized, and privileged women, are assumed to be susceptible to conversion. This presumption not only perpetuates stereotypes but also violates Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on gender.

The Uttar Pradesh Anti-conversion law undermines the foundational principles of the Constitution, including the right to freedom of religion, the right to personal autonomy, and the principle of innocence until proven guilty.

It also displays discriminatory tendencies, particularly against women, and thus raises serious concerns about its constitutionality and adherence to the principles of justice and equality, the act also violates the judgments of supreme court in following cases: Hadiya Judgment 2017[16 SCC 368, AIR 2018]: The matters of dress, food, ideas, ideologies, love, and partnership form the core aspects of an individual’s identity.

The State and the law cannot impose or restrict choices in selecting partners or impede a person’s freedom to decide on these vital matters. The K.S. Puttaswamy or ‘Privacy’ Judgment 2017[2017 10 SCC 1]: The autonomy of an individual encompasses the ability to make decisions concerning crucial aspects of life that directly concern them. Lata Singh Case 1994: The apex court recognized that India is undergoing a crucial transformative phase, and preserving the strength of the Constitution relies on embracing the richness of our diverse culture.

In cases of inter-religious marriage, relatives dissatisfied with the union should opt for peacefully cutting off social relations instead of resorting to violence or harassment (Soni Gerry case, 2018[SLP NO 6237/2017): The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned judges against assuming the role of “super-guardians” and making decisions based on sentimental or egotistical factors of parents.

Since its enactment in 2020, the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act has resulted in the registration of at least 433 cases by the Uttar Pradesh police. Among these cases, 184 victims have come forward to confess that they were forcefully converted to a different faith, while 66 cases involve minors who were subjected to such conversions.

Notably, the Bareilly police zone has seen the highest number of registrations, with 65 cases reported. Providing insight into the progress of these cases, Prashant Kumar, the Special Director General of Law and Order, stated that charge sheets have been filed in 339 cases, and investigations are still ongoing in 47 cases. Additionally, final reports have been filed in four cases.

The total number of individuals named in these 433 cases amounts to 1,229. Throughout the investigation process, the role of 124 accused individuals could not be established, leading to their release. Moreover, approximately 70 individuals named in the cases have voluntarily surrendered themselves in court.

The cases in Moradabad and Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, serve as stark examples of how anti-conversion laws can be prone to abuse. The case of a Christian priest in Azamgarh named pastor Nathaniel is accused of propagating and intimidating people to convert to Christianity. The complainant in the case was not any attendee of his prayer service, rather his neighbour a local BJP leader Sudhir Gupta who cannot be the complainant as per the law as section 4 of the Act. This section (4) explicitly stipulates that any individual who has been subjected to forceful or fraudulent conversion, as well as their blood relatives or family members, hold the right to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) concerning such conversion. In essence, this section clarifies that the complainant in such cases can be either the person who experienced coercion into conversion or any of their blood relatives or family members.

There is, however, a pattern being noticed across the districts where non-affected third party complaints to the police or they follow the channel of involving Hindutva vigilante groups to read further [The Quint, April 2023].

Although the law was ostensibly intended to uncover instances where religious conversion is solely for the purpose of facilitating marriages, the UP law has failed to effectively communicate its objectives, leaving no clear roadmap for identifying such cases. Consequently, there is a heightened risk of misuse of the law. In such a scenario, the burden of upholding justice and safeguarding individual rights falls heavily on the judicial system.

The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently upheld the principle of personal liberty for individuals who have attained the age of majority, and this responsibility becomes all the more crucial in light of the potential for misuse of the law.

Based on these observations, it is evident that the Uttar Pradesh legislation unjustly encroaches upon the constitutional right of individuals to marry the person of their choice.

This law could potentially undermine the principles laid out in the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954 and, even more importantly, the original vision of the Constitution’s framers for a Uniform Civil Code.

An immediate intervention is necessary to repeal laws like these as forced conversion is already proscribed, and introducing additional laws would only further erode the protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Moreover, it is crucial to prevent other states from following suit and enacting similar legislation that may compromise individual freedoms. To safeguard the principles of liberty and equality enshrined in the Constitution, it is essential to take prompt action and ensure that such restrictive laws are abolished, allowing every citizen to exercise their right to marry freely and protect their constitutionally upheld rights.

The recent judgement may be read here

[i] https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_states/uttar-pradesh/

https://theprint.in/india/1-year-of-up-anti-conversion-law-108-cases-chargesheet-filed-in-72-lack-of-proof-in-11/770763/

Related:

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

The post Anti-conversion law of Uttar Pradesh: a litany of misuse appeared first on SabrangIndia.