Justice Vinod Diwakar, Allahabad High Court
Police Officers Can Lodge FIR Under UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act: Allahabad HC
|The applicant sought quashing of an FIR alleging unlawful religious conversions through inducement at a church.
The Allahabad High Court upheld the authority of police officers to register First Information Reports (FIRs) under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, even if the complainant is not a direct victim or relative.
Applicant had approached the court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to quash the FIR lodged against him and others in Jaunpur district. The FIR accused him of orchestrating unlawful religious conversions at a church in Vikrampur by offering money and free medical treatment to poor villagers, allegedly under the guise of Christian prayer meetings.
A Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar said, “section 4 of the Act, 2021 has been substituted with section 4 by the Amendment Act, 2024 to align with the constitutional spirit by balancing the individual's right to religious freedom with the state's duty to uphold public order, morality, and health. It clarifies unlawful conversion is not only an offence against an individual and their relatives, but also the State- particularly in cases of mass conversion of socially and economically deprived section of the society- when such conversions are carried out through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, fraudulent means, the threat to the societal fabric individuals or communal well-being becomes even more grave. In such circumstances, the State cannot remain a silent spectator.”
The Court further said, “India’s constitutional framework guarantees the right to religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. This Article confers upon every person the fundamental right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. The use of the word “freely” in Article 25 underscores the voluntary nature of religious belief and expression. However, the Constitution does not endorse forced or fraudulent conversions, nor does it shield coercive or deceptive practices under the guise of religious propagation.”
One of the main arguments raised by applicant’s counsel was that the FIR was illegal because it had been filed by the SHO and not by an "aggrieved person" as defined under Section 4 of the Act, 2021. According to the applicant, only the victim or their close relatives could file such a complaint.
The Court added, “section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Act, 2021, shall be construed in harmonious conjunction with Section 173 of BNSS, 2023 (section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), so as to effectuate the legislative object of deterring and penalizing unlawful religious conversions. Applying the principle of purposive interpretation, the undefined term “any aggrieved person” under the unamended Section 4 of the Act, 2021 cannot be interpreted in isolation. Given the statutory context and intent of the enactment, the expression must be construed broadly to include the Station House Officer (S.H.O.), who is legally mandated to maintain public order and is competent under Section 173 of BNSS, 2023 to register FIR for cognizable offences.”
The Court held that Section 4 must be interpreted in light of its legislative purpose to prevent fraudulent religious conversions. The Court noted that the term "any aggrieved person" is not narrowly defined, and its placement in the provision, followed by a comma, indicates a broader category that includes informants like police officers acting to maintain public order. The Court observed that “the use of the word “may” in section 4 of the Act is indicative of legislative intent to confer a discretionary power rather than impose a mandatory obligation.”
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the 2024 amendment to the Act, which allows "any person" to report such offences, should be viewed as clarificatory and applicable to pending cases. The state had argued that reading down the SHO’s authority to file an FIR would frustrate the very object of the Act and compromise the government’s ability to act against coercive conversions. Citing constitutional safeguards under Article 25, the Court emphasized that religious freedom does not extend to conversions achieved through misrepresentation, force, or inducement. The Court added, “The primary object of the Act is to prohibit conversions from one religion to another that are carried out through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, fraudulent means, or marriage for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion. By targeting such methods, the law seeks to prevent exploitation and manipulation that could have broader destabilising effects on social harmony, besides disruption of law and order.”
The Court held that the FIR and the statements of witnesses disclosed cognizable offences. Accordingly, it refused to interfere in the investigation. However, the Court protected the applicant from judicial custody, subject to the terms and conditions as may be decided by the trial court.
Cause Title: Durga Yadav & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [2025:AHC:78127]
Appearance:
Applicants: Advocates Abhishek Kumar Yadav, Upendra Kumar Singh