+91 964 334 1948
23 Oct 2025, 04:29 PM
While quashing FIRs against the Vice Chancellor and other officials of the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Science (SHUATS), Prayagraj, over alleged forced mass religious conversions of people to Christianity, the Supreme Court raised concerns over some provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
The Court noted that the UP Act puts a very onerous burden on a person wanting to adopt a faith other than the one he professes.
The Court also underlined that the people of India have the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, and this liberty is an embodiment and expression of the secular nature of the country.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, while noting that the constitutionality validity of the UP Unlawful Conversion Act is not before the Court, expressed certain prima facie views. The Act mandated to make a declaration before the District Magistrate on conversion led to State interference in personal matters. It noted that the interference of State authorities is very visible under the Act to the extent that the District Magistrate has been legally obliged to direct a police enquiry in each case of intended religious conversion.
The Court also wondered if the provision to publish the personal details of a converted person would be in conformity with the judgments protecting the fundamental right to privacy.
"As discussed earlier, the constitutional validity of the provisions of the U.P. Conversion Act does not fall for our consideration in the instant case. Nonetheless, we can't help but observe that the provisions of the said Act pertaining to the pre and post-conversion declaration seem to introduce a very onerous procedure to be followed by an individual seeking to adopt a faith other than the one he professes. The involvement and interference of the State authorities in the conversion procedure is also conspicuous, with the District Magistrate having been legally obliged to direct a police enquiry in each case of intended religious conversion. Further, the statutory requirement of making public the personal details of each person who has converted to a different religion may require a deeper examination to ascertain if such a requirement fits well with the privacy regime pervading the constitution."
During the hearing of this matter, the bench had orally remarked that the parts of the 2021 Act seem to be violating fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, particularly Article 25.
The Act provides pre- and post-conversion procedures. Pre-conversion procedure requires the person who desires to convert his religion to make a declaration 60 days before the proposed conversion before the prescribed authority that there is no force, coercion, undue influence or allurement. The person who performs the conversion is also required to give an advance one-month notice to the prescribed authority that he will be performing the said conversion. The authority has to then direct the police to conduct an enquiry. This is the procedure mandated under Section 8 and if there is no pre-conversion declaration by the person who wishes to convert, it is punishable with imprisonment upto 3 years and a minimum fine of Rs. 10,000.
Once conversion is done, the person is then again required to send a declaration to the prescribed authority within 60 days, pursuant to which the authority would exhibit a copy of the declaration on the notice board. The particulars required to be disclosed in the declaration include the permanent address, place of residence, nature of process undergone etc. It is required for the convert to appear before the prescribed authority within 21 days of sending the declaration to establish his identity and confirm the contents.
The bench reiterated that the word secular in the Preamble to the Constitution is an intrinsic part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It also noted that Article 25 of the Constitution, subject to the restriction imposed, gives very person the fundamental right not merely to entertain a religious belief as may be approved of by his judgment or conscience, but to exhibit belief and ideas in such overt acts, as are enjoined or sanctioned by his religion and further to propogate his religious views for his edification of others.
It reminded us that the Constitution does not define the word 'religion' and Courts have concluded that religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities. The bench cited KS Puttaswamy judgment to state that Article 25 carries within it the facets of privacy rights, including the freedom of conscience and also the choice to express it to the world at large.
It also referred to Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M judgment to ascertain that while the Constitution guarantees the right to practice, profess and propagate religion, an individual's autonomy is supreme in choices of faith and belief which are intrinsic in matters of marriage. The Court prohibited the State as well as the law from controlling the choice of choosing a partner or even limiting or regulating the ability to decide on such matter.
"In the preamble to the Constitution of India the words 'SOCIALIST SECULAR' were inserted by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. The secular nature of India is an intrinsic part of the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, as held in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1973 SC 1461. As laid down in the Preamble, the People of India, have resolved to secure to all its citizens, liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, apart from Justice, social, economic and political; Equality of status and of opportunity and to promote among them all fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual, and the unity and integrity of the Nation. It requires no further exposition that the Preamble to the Constitution is of extreme importance and the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of the noble and grand vision expressed in the Preamble.
The People of India are given the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. This liberty is an embodiment and expression of the secular nature of the country."
It should be noted that a challenge to the constitutionality of the 2021 Act is pending before the Supreme Court in cases filed by the Citizen for Justice and Peace and Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind. Petition is also pending challenging an order passed by the Gujarat High Court prima facie observing that the Gujarat Freedom of Religion(Amendment) Act, 2021, "interferes with the intricacies of marriage, including the right to the choice of an individual, thereby infringing Article 21 of the Constitution of India". At the Gujarat High Court, a division bench comprising then Chief Justice Vikram Nath(now Supreme Court judge) and Justice Biren Vaishnav observed that the provisions of the law, commonly known as the 'love jihad' law, put parties who have validly entered into inter-faith marriage "in great jeopardy". An interim order was passed that the provisions of the Act will not apply to inter-faith marriages which take place without force, allurement or fraudulent means.
Also from the judgment :
Case Details: RAJENDRA BIHARI LAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.| W.P.(Crl.) No. 123/2023 and connected cases.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1021
Click here to read the judgment
Senior Advocates Siddarth Dave, Siddharth Agarwal,Rebecca M John, Advocate Vairawan A.S, Pallavi Sharma appeared for the petitioners.
Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, and AAG Garima Prashad appeared for the State of UP.