Introduction
In a significant observation on India’s anti-conversion laws, the Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns about the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, noting that certain provisions impose onerous and intrusive conditions on individuals seeking to change their religion.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra made the remarks while quashing FIRs registered against the Vice-Chancellor and officials of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS), Prayagraj, in a case alleging forced mass religious conversions.
Although the Court clarified that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the 2021 Act, it issued prima facie observations questioning the legality of State interference in personal faith matters and the potential violation of privacy and autonomy rights.
Background of the Case
The FIRs against SHUATS officials accused them of inducing mass conversions to Christianity, allegedly in contravention of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The accused moved the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking quashing of the FIRs.
After examining the material on record, the apex court found no evidence of coercion, fraud, or allurement, holding that the case had been wrongly criminalized under the anti-conversion statute.
Court’s Prima Facie Observations on the UP Law
While disposing of the case, the Court took the opportunity to highlight several constitutional concerns with the UP Anti-Conversion Act:
“The provisions of the said Act pertaining to 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.”
The Bench noted that these provisions restrict personal liberty and intrude into individual autonomy, both of which are core aspects of Article 21 and Article 25 of the Constitution.
Mandate To Publish Personal Details May Violate Privacy
The Supreme Court expressed specific concern over the requirement to publish the personal details of converted individuals, calling for closer scrutiny in light of the constitutional right to privacy recognized in KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
“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,” the Bench remarked.
Such publication, the Court implied, could lead to stigmatization, harassment, or targeting of individuals based on their faith choices.
What The UP Anti-Conversion Act Mandates
The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, requires:
- Pre-conversion declaration:
- Any person intending to convert must give 60 days’ prior notice to the District Magistrate (DM) stating that the conversion is voluntary and without coercion, force, or allurement.
- The priest or person performing the conversion must give 30 days’ prior notice to the same authority.
- The DM must then direct a police inquiry into the proposed conversion.
- Non-compliance attracts imprisonment up to 3 years and a minimum fine of ₹10,000 under Section 8.
- Post-conversion declaration:
- The converted individual must submit a declaration to the DM within 60 days after conversion, disclosing name, address, and process undergone.
- The DM must then publish the declaration publicly on the office notice board.
- The convert must appear before the DM within 21 days to confirm their identity and intent.
The Court noted that these provisions collectively amount to State surveillance over matters of conscience and belief, effectively making faith a matter of bureaucratic approval.
Right To Religion, Privacy, and Autonomy
Reiterating constitutional principles, the Bench stated that the freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25 encompasses not just belief but also the freedom to change or express one’s faith without State interference.
It cited precedents such as:
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Establishing secularism as part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
- KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Recognizing the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of personal liberty under Article 21.
- Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018): Affirming that the choice of faith and partner lies within individual autonomy, immune from State control.
The Bench emphasized:
“Article 25 gives every person the right not merely to entertain a religious belief as approved by their conscience but to exhibit it through acts sanctioned by their religion and to propagate their faith for their own edification or for others.”
It also reminded that ‘religion’ is not defined in the Constitution but is understood as a matter of personal faith and conscience, which the State must respect.
Secularism As A Basic Constitutional Principle
In a strongly worded passage, the Court reiterated that India’s secular character—enshrined in the Preamble through the words “Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic”—forms part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
“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,” the judgment observed.
The Bench thus connected the UP Conversion Act’s procedural intrusions to potential erosions of secularism and individual liberty, cautioning that State overreach in matters of faith could undermine the constitutional vision of equality and fraternity.
Pending Constitutional Challenge
It is noteworthy that the constitutional validity of the UP Anti-Conversion Act, 2021 is pending before the Supreme Court in petitions filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace and Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind.
Parallelly, similar challenges have arisen in other states such as Gujarat, where the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021 was stayed by the Gujarat High Court for prima facie interfering with personal liberty and interfaith marriages. The High Court noted that such laws place undue burdens on consenting adults and criminalize voluntary conversions tied to marriage.
The Supreme Court’s latest observations could therefore influence or guide the final adjudication of these broader constitutional challenges.
FIRs Against SHUATS Officials Quashed
In the same judgment, the Supreme Court quashed all FIRs against SHUATS Vice Chancellor Rajendra Bihari Lal and other officials, holding that:
- “Criminal law is not a tool to harass innocents.”
- “Religious gatherings or acts of charity cannot by themselves constitute offences under the UP Conversion Act.”
The Court thus reaffirmed the principle that criminal statutes must not be misused to suppress legitimate expressions of faith or community activity.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s observations mark an important constitutional moment in India’s ongoing debate over anti-conversion laws. By questioning the intrusive procedures and publication requirements in the UP Conversion Act, the Court has drawn attention to the fragile balance between religious freedom and State regulation.
While the broader challenge to the law’s constitutionality remains pending, the judgment reinforces that faith is a private matter, and State intrusion into conscience and belief must be narrowly tailored, if at all.
In essence, the Court’s remarks reaffirm that India’s secular democracy thrives only when personal choice in matters of religion is protected, and that liberty of belief and worship—as guaranteed in the Preamble and Articles 21 and 25—remains inviolable.
Also Read
Supreme Court Orders Preservation of CCTV Footage and Medical Records in Mumbai Custodial Death Case
