Receiving Foreign Aid & Doing Charitable Work In Name Of Religion By Itself Not A Punishable Offence: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was deciding a case involving FIRs related to an alleged event of mass religious conversion which as per the complaint filed by VHP's Vice President took place at the Evangelical Church of India, Hariharganj, Fatehpur in 2022.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that receiving foreign aid and carrying out charitable work, even in the name of religion, ipso facto is not a punishable offence under any of the legislations.
The Court held thus in a batch of Writ Petitions and Criminal Appeals concerning six FIRs filed under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the U.P. Conversion Act.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra observed, “… we do not find from a reading of the U.P. Conversion Act that organization of religious gatherings or doing charity work in the name of religion has also been made a criminal offence. No provision in the IPC prohibits such activities too. No irregularity in the funding of the organization from international sources has been pointed out. More so, in case of any such irregularity, a number of provisions of the relevant legislations could have been invoked to deal with an erring organization. However, none of such provisions have been invoked in the present case. Receiving foreign aid and carrying out charitable work, even in the name of religion, ipso facto is not a punishable offence under any of the legislations.”
The FIRs were related to an alleged event of mass religious conversion which according to the complaint filed by Vice President of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), allegedly took place at the Evangelical Church of India, Hariharganj, Fatehpur in the year 2022, which happened to be “Maundy Thursday”, a day of religious significance for the followers of Christ.
Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave, Mukta Gupta, Siddharth Agarwal, Rebecca John, C.U. Singh, and AOR Vairawan A.S. appeared on behalf of the Petitioners/Appellants, while Attorney General (AG) R. Venkataramani appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “… how Section 161 statements of two victim-witness, recorded more than a year apart from each other bear such a striking degree of similarity, not just in the version of the events narrated, but also in the structuring of the sentences, style of narration, and length of the statement. … the statements have possibly been reproduced from a pre-decided prototype with change in the personal particulars depending upon the witness making the statement.”
The Court noted that where the credentials of the investigation are already lacking in genuineness and credibility in relation to the other FIRs registered at the same police station for similar offences, it wouldn’t be prudent to allow the continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the present FIR as well.
“What becomes clear from a perusal of the aforesaid statements of other witnesses is that neither have these witnesses undergone unlawful religious conversion, nor were they present at the place of the alleged mass conversion dated 14.04.2022. Further, the allegations of forgery in the Aadhar cards also lack credible documentary material to support the same. Pertinently, the Aadhar cards which have been gathered as a part of the Case Diary are different not only in the surnames of the witnesses, but the photographs of the individuals are also different from the Aadhar cards which are sought to be portrayed as the “original” cards”, it further noted.
The Court added that the investigating authority has failed to attach any report of the competent authority responsible for issuing Aadhar cards to the effect that the cards seized by the investigating authority are forged and no such cards have been issued by the competent authority.
“Further, no offence under the Aadhar Act, 2016 has been added against the accused persons. We are not oblivious to the fact that there is a procedure for updating the personal details in the Aadhar cards, and it would be open to an individual who has undergone religious conversion voluntarily, to suitably get their Aadhar card amended to reflect the desired change in their identity. In the absence of any material indicating that the Aadhar cards gathered during search and seizure are forged and not updated ones, we find it difficult to assume the same”, it observed.
The Court enunciated that mere recovery of Aadhar cards and card printing machine, does not indicate towards the commission of an offence on its own in the absence of explicit proof that the setup was being utilized to print forged Aadhar cards and not the updated ones as per the prescribed procedure, or for printing identity cards of the students and staff at the institution from where the machine was recovered.
“The hands of the Court cannot be said to be tied where on overall view of the matter, it appears that continuation of criminal proceedings would result in a travesty of justice, even when the materials gathered may satisfy the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. The dictum in Mohamad Wajid (supra) calls upon the courts to read between the lines if the need so arises from an overall understanding of the circumstances emerging from the record”, it also remarked.
The Court was of the view that the only course that would meet the ends of justice is to quash the said FIR as well as all consequential legal proceedings emanating therefrom in exercise of the powers conferred on the Court by Article 32 of the Constitution.
Conclusion
The Court further said that there is a severe lack of bona fides and it seems that the entire process of investigation was not an attempt to uncover the truth of the allegations, but rather to find ways to somehow substantiate the allegations levelled in the FIR.
“… the difficulty by getting persons with vested interests to make complaints regarding the same alleged incident after a considerable delay and thereafter initiate a fresh round of investigation against largely the same set of accused persons. Unfortunately, this is the only impression which the material on record has left on us”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Petitions/Appeals and quashed the FIRs.
Cause Title- Rajendra Bihari Lal and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1249)
