In a recent important ruling, the Allahabad High Court denied bail to Shriniwas Rav Nayak, who is accused of illegal religious conversion under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal delivered this decision, highlighting a crucial point: while everyone has the right to religious freedom, this does not include the right to convert others to their religion.
This judgment sets an important precedent in how religious rights are interpreted in India. It clarifies that practicing and sharing one’s faith is protected under the right to religious freedom, but actively converting others, especially through unlawful means, is not.
The ruling reinforces the legal boundaries around religious activities, ensuring that the right to religious freedom is respected without overstepping into illegal conversions. This decision is likely to influence future cases involving religious conversions and the enforcement of related laws in India.
Background of the Case
The case began with an incident in February 2023, where the informant reported being invited to the house of a co-accused. Upon arrival, he allegedly encountered several individuals, primarily from the Scheduled Caste community, being pressured to abandon Hinduism and convert to Christianity. The conversion was being encouraged with promises of relief from their suffering and improved life prospects. The informant managed to escape and reported the event to the police.
This led to the registration of the case under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, a strict anti-conversion law. The law aims to prevent forced or incentivized religious conversions.
The case against Shriniwas Rav Nayak, accused of involvement in these activities, underscores the legal boundaries set to protect religious freedom while preventing coercive conversion practices.
Court’s Observations
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal’s ruling in the case emphasized a critical interpretation of religious freedom under the Indian Constitution. He clarified that while the Constitution grants individuals the right to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, this does not extend to collective proselytization.
Justice Agarwal referred specifically to Article 25 of the Constitution, which protects the freedom of conscience and religion. He pointed out that this article does not sanction the conversion of others through coercion, misrepresentation, or allurement.
Justice Agarwal’s observations underscored the delicate balance that the Constitution seeks to maintain between an individual’s right to religious freedom and the collective societal interest. He stressed that the right to religious freedom is designed to safeguard personal faith and practice, not to authorize the conversion of others, especially through improper means. This interpretation ensures that while individuals are free to follow and share their faith, they must respect the religious autonomy of others.
In his judgment, Justice 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 proselytize; the right to religious freedom belongs equally to the person converting and the individual sought to be converted.”
This statement highlights that the right to religious freedom is reciprocal. It belongs not only to the person who wishes to convert others but also to the individual who is the target of conversion efforts.
The Court’s decision reaffirms that any attempt to convert others must respect the latter’s freedom of conscience, preventing any form of coercion or manipulation. This ruling sets a significant precedent in interpreting religious rights, ensuring that individual freedoms are preserved while maintaining social harmony and legal integrity.
Legal Arguments And Court’s Decision
In the case involving Shriniwas Rav Nayak, the defense argued that Nayak, a domestic help from Andhra Pradesh, was not involved in the alleged mass conversion incident. They contended that the First Information Report (FIR) did not identify him as a ‘religion converter‘ under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. However, the prosecution maintained that Nayak actively participated in the conversion efforts, presenting a prima facie case against him.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, presiding over the case, considered the provisions of the anti-conversion law. The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, explicitly prohibits conversion by means of misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, and allurement. Justice Agarwal observed that the villagers allegedly enticed and misrepresented to convert to Christianity, forming the basis of the case.
Despite the defense’s argument regarding the absence of a designated ‘religion converter’ at the scene, the court ruled this irrelevant under the law. Justice Agarwal noted, “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’s decision to deny bail to Nayak underscores the seriousness with which the judiciary views allegations under the anti-conversion law. It highlights the legal stance against coercive or fraudulent methods used in religious conversions, aiming to protect individuals’ rights to religious freedom while preventing exploitation or manipulation.
This ruling sets a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing compliance with legal standards and ethical conduct in matters concerning religious conversions in India.
Implications of the Judgment
The Allahabad High Court’s recent judgment reinforces the legal principle that the right to propagate religion does not extend to converting others against their will or through deceptive means.
This ruling underscore the judiciary’s role in upholding individual rights while maintaining constitutional balance. It also sends a clear message against unlawful conversion practices, signaling stringent legal scrutiny for such activities.
This decision marks a significant milestone in the ongoing discourse on religious conversions in India, emphasizing the importance of respecting individual religious freedoms while preventing coercion or deceitful tactics. By aligning with constitutional values, the judgment aims to ensure harmony and fairness in matters concerning religious beliefs and practices within the country.
The Importance of Laws Against Conversion
The Allahabad High Court’s decision underscores the critical importance of anti-conversion laws in India, designed to prevent coercive and fraudulent practices under the guise of religious conversion. Such laws are essential safeguards against the manipulation of vulnerable individuals, especially from the Hindu community, by groups seeking to increase their religious demographics.
The unfortunate reality is that certain elements within other religious communities, notably from Islamic and Christian backgrounds, often exploit socio-economic vulnerabilities to lure individuals into conversion with promises of a better life or divine favor. This predatory behavior not only undermines the fundamental right to religious freedom but also threatens the fabric of communal harmony.
Awakening Hindus: Uniting Against Manipulative Conversion Practices
In light of these challenges, it is crucial for Hindus to awaken to the realities of these conversion games and to stand firm in protecting their cultural and religious heritage. The recent case highlights the urgency for Hindus to unite against fraudulent conversion practices that aim to destabilize their identity and faith. It is a call to educate oneself and the community about the deceptive tactics used in forced conversions, ensuring that individuals are empowered to make informed decisions about their beliefs.
By fostering awareness and resilience within Hindu communities, we can collectively thwart attempts to undermine our pluralistic society. It is incumbent upon Hindus to uphold the principles of religious harmony, mutual respect, and constitutional values. Through advocacy, legal vigilance, and community solidarity, Hindus can effectively counteract external pressures that seek to dilute their identity and faith. Let us unite in safeguarding our beliefs and traditions, ensuring that the promise of a diverse and inclusive India remains steadfast.
This perspective emphasizes the need for Hindus to take proactive measures in safeguarding their religious and cultural heritage amidst evolving socio-religious dynamics in the country.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s recent decision on illegal religious conversions marks a significant milestone in India’s legal framework. By affirming that religious freedom does not extend to coercive or deceptive conversion practices, the court reinforces the principle of protecting individual rights while promoting communal harmony. This ruling underscore the necessity of anti-conversion laws to prevent exploitation and maintain social cohesion.
Moreover, the judgment prompts reflection on the ethical dimensions of religious conversions. It urges all communities, particularly Hindus, to remain vigilant against efforts to undermine their faith through deceptive tactics. The court’s emphasis on respecting individuals’ autonomy and beliefs underscores India’s commitment to pluralism and mutual respect among diverse religious groups.
As we navigate complex socio-religious dynamics, this decision provides clarity and guidance. It highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding justice and ensuring that religious freedoms are exercised responsibly. Moving forward, it is crucial for all stakeholders to uphold the spirit of tolerance and inclusivity enshrined in our Constitution. By fostering dialogue and understanding, India can continue to be a beacon of religious diversity where all beliefs are honored and protected under the law.
Drafted by Saurav Yadav student of School of Law and Legal Studies, Sanskriti University
Published on 10 July, 2024