Allahabad Court Upholds Ban on Forced Conversions: No Right to Proselytize, Only to Profess

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court denied bail to Shriniwas Rav Nayak, an accused in a case of illegal religious conversion. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal emphasized that the Constitution of India grants individuals the right to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, but does not extend to the conversion of others. The case has highlighted the complexities surrounding religious freedom and conversion in India.

"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 proselytize; the right to religious freedom belongs equally to the person converting and the individual seeking to be converted,” the Court observed.

The case against Nayak, a resident of Andhra Pradesh, falls under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. According to the prosecution, the informant had been invited to the house of a co-accused in February. There, he encountered a group, primarily from the Scheduled Caste community, who were allegedly encouraged to convert to Christianity with promises of a better life. The informant managed to escape and report the incident to the police, leading to Nayak's arrest.

Nayak's counsel argued that he was merely a domestic help and had no involvement in the alleged conversions. They also noted that the FIR did not identify any ‘religion converter’ as defined by the law. However, the State contended that Nayak was actively involved, making a case against him.

The Court referenced its previous order from July 1, which stressed the potential demographic impact of unchecked conversions: “If this process is allowed to be carried out, the majority population of this country would be in minority one day, and such religious congregation should be immediately stopped where the conversion is taking place and changing the religion of citizens of India.”

The judgment reiterated that the 2021 law prohibits conversions obtained through "misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, and allurement." Addressing Article 25 of the Constitution, the Court clarified, “The Constitution clearly envisages and permits its citizens right to freedom of religion in respect to their professing, practicing and propagating its religion. It does not allow or permit any citizen to convert any citizen from one religion to another religion.”

The Court dismissed the defense's argument about the absence of a ‘religion converter’ at the scene, stating that the law does not require such a presence for a conversion to be deemed unlawful. “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 program was going on where many villagers belonging to Scheduled Castes community were being converted from Hindu religion to Christianity,” the Court concluded.

The legal representation for Nayak included Advocates Patsy David, Sanju Lata, and Saurabh Pandey, while Advocate Sunil Kumar appeared for the State.

Author: Anushka Taraniya

News writer