In a landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court has clarified the boundaries of religious freedom in India, emphasising that while individuals have the constitutional right to practice and propagate their faith, this does not extend to a collective right to convert others. The ruling, delivered by Judge Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, underscores the constitutional guarantee of individual freedom of conscience and its limitations regarding proselytisation.
The court’s decision comes as part of a broader examination of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. Judge Agarwal stated, “The Constitution confers on each individual the fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate his religion. However, the individual right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be extended to construe a collective right to proselytise; the right to religious freedom belongs equally to the person converting and the individual seeking to be converted.”
The ruling was made in the context of a bail application by Shriniwas Rav Nayak, who was implicated in a case filed at the Nichlaul police station in the Maharajganj district under Sections 3/5 (1) of the 2021 Act.
According to the First Information Report (FIR), the informant was invited to co-accused Vishwanath’s home on February 15, where he was persuaded to abandon Hinduism and convert to Christianity. The FIR details that promise of a better life and problem resolution were used as inducements, and several villagers, predominantly from Scheduled Castes, had already embraced Christianity.
Legal representation for Nayak argued that their client was merely providing domestic assistance and was not involved in the alleged conversion activities. They claimed there was no undue influence and questioned the reliability of the witness statements, noting that no direct complaints were made by those who converted.
Conversely, the additional government advocate maintained that Nayak was actively involved in the conversion process. The court noted, “The Constitution clearly envisages and permits its citizens right to freedom of religion in respect to their professing, practising and propagating its religion. It does not allow or permit any citizen to convert any citizen from one religion to another religion.”
The court highlighted that Section 3 of the 2021 Act explicitly forbids conversion by means of deception, compulsion, fraud, undue influence, and seduction. The Act also penalises those who aid or abet such conversions. The court stressed that the Act was enacted with due consideration to Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits forced conversions.
Given the evidence, the court concluded that the informant had been coerced into converting, which justified denying bail to Nayak. “In the instant case, the informant was persuaded to convert to another religion, which is prima facie sufficient to decline bail to the applicant as it establishes that a conversion programme was going on where many villagers belonging to Scheduled Castes community were being converted from Hindu religion to Christianity,” the court ruled.
The court affirmed that there was no reason to believe the informant had falsely implicated Nayak, particularly given the lack of enmity between them.
This decision reinforces the protection against unauthorised religious conversions in Uttar Pradesh and delineates the scope of religious freedom under the Indian Constitution. By denying bail to Nayak, the court has sent a clear message about the seriousness of illegal conversion activities and the state’s commitment to upholding constitutional principles.
