The Allahabad High Court has delivered a crucial judgment asserting that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act (UAPA) , 2021, applies to anyone involved in forced religious conversions, regardless of their title or religious affiliation. This ruling clarifies that individuals, whether referred to as Father, Maulana, Karmkandi, or any other title, are subject to legal action if they engage in coercive or fraudulent conversion practices.
The court’s decision came in response to a bail application filed by Mohammad Shane Alam, a Maulana, who faces allegations of forcibly converting a young woman to Islam and arranging her Nikaah (marriage) with a Muslim man. Alam’s plea for bail was denied by the bench led by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, who reviewed the case in light of the UP Anti-Conversion Act’s provisions.
Mohammad Shane Alam was charged under Sections 3 and 5(1) of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The victim, whose statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), testified that she was pressured into converting to Islam and that her marriage was conducted against her will. This testimony played a crucial role in the court’s case assessment.
The Allahabad High Court examined whether Alam’s actions constituted a violation of the anti-conversion law, which forbids conversions through misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, or allurement. Section 2(i) of the Act defines a ‘Religion Converter’ as any person who undertakes or facilitates the conversion of individuals through such prohibited means. The court found that Alam fit this definition, thus making him liable under the Act.
Justice Agarwal’s ruling emphasised that the anti-conversion law applies universally to anyone who engages in forced conversions, regardless of their religious or social designation. The court highlighted that the law’s intent is to prevent coercive and fraudulent conversion practices, thus protecting individuals’ fundamental rights to religious freedom.
The bench noted that the law requires individuals seeking to convert others to obtain a declaration from the District Magistrate, as stipulated in Section 8 of the Act. Alam’s failure to comply with this requirement further substantiated the legal action against him. The court reiterated that non-compliance with this procedural requirement constitutes an offence under Section 5 of the Act.
The High Court’s decision reflects the balancing act between protecting individuals’ rights to practice religion and ensuring that such practices are not carried out under duress. The court acknowledged the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom but also recognised that coercive conversions violate this freedom and disrupt social harmony.
The court’s interpretation reinforces the principle that the anti-conversion law is designed to address the Act of conversion itself and the methods employed to achieve it. By holding all individuals involved in coercive conversions accountable, regardless of their religious status, the court aims to uphold legal standards and ensure that conversions occur voluntarily and transparently.
This ruling has significant implications for religious conversion cases in Uttar Pradesh and potentially across India. It establishes a precedent that religious leaders and figures, regardless of their title or role, are subject to legal scrutiny if they engage in forced or fraudulent conversions.
Comments