Source:  Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

The Allahabad High Court recently in matter of Shriniwas Rav Nayak v. State of U.P. Court observes the distinction between individual freedom of religious expression and the collective act of proselytization. The court emphasized that while individuals have the right to freely choose and practice their religion under the Constitution, they cannot convert others to their faith.  

What was the Background of Shriniwas Rav Nayak v. State of U.P.?

• The applicant is involved in Case, under Sections 3/5 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. 
• The incident occurred on 15th February 2024 at the house of co-accused Vishwanath in Nichlaul, District Maharajganj. 
• The informant was invited to Vishwanath's house, where he found many villagers, mostly from the Scheduled Castes community. 
• Present at the house were co-accused Vishwanath, his brother Brijlal, the applicant, and one Ravindra. 
•  The informant was asked to leave Hinduism and accept Christianity, with promises of ending pain and progress in life. 
• Some villagers had reportedly accepted Christianity and started praying. 
• The informant escaped and informed the police. 
• The applicant claims to be a domestic help of one of the co-accused and a resident of Andhra Pradesh. 
• The applicant's counsel argued that the FIR doesn't identify any "religion converter" as defined by the Act. 
• The prosecution contends that mass conversion was taking place, and the applicant was actively participating. 
• Police recorded statements of independent witnesses confirming the conversion event. 
•  The court found prima facie evidence of unlawful religious conversion under the Act. 
• The court rejected the bail application, citing that the Act prohibits religious conversion under Section 3, punishable under Section 5. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 statement of objects and reasons was to prohibit unlawful conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, fraudulent means, or by marriage. 
• The Court reiterated that while the Constitution of India guarantees religious freedom, the individual right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be extended to construe a collective right to proselytize. 
• The Court emphasized that Section 3 of the Act explicitly prohibits conversion from one religion to another based on misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, and allurement. 
• The Court noted that Article 25 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) while providing for freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, does not permit any citizen to convert another citizen from one religion to another. 
• The Court observed that the Act of 2021 was enacted in consonance with the constitutional provision. 

What is Article 25 of COI? 

• Legal Provision: 
  • Article 25 deals with freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.  
    • Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. 
    • Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law:  
      • (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; 
      • (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. 
• About Article 25: 
  • It guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion to all persons. 
  • This right is subject to public order, morality, and health. 
  • It allows the state to regulate or restrict economic, financial, political, or other secular activities associated with religious practices. 
  • It permits the state to make laws for social welfare and reform, including opening Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus. 
  • The Article includes two explanations:  
    • Explanation I: Wearing and carrying of kirpans is deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. 
    • Explanation II: The reference to Hindus includes persons professing Sikh, Jaina, or Buddhist religions, and Hindu religious institutions are construed accordingly. 
  • While it guarantees the right to propagate religion, it does not include the right to convert another person to one's own religion, as clarified by the Supreme Court in various judgments. 
  • The freedom is available to all persons, including citizens and non-citizens. 

What are the Major Judicial Pronouncements on Freedom of Religion? 

• Bijoe Emmanuel and Ors. v. State of Kerala (1986): 
  • In this case, three children of Jehovah’s Witnesses sect were suspended from the school as they refused to sing the national anthem claiming that it is against the tenets of their faith.  
  • The court held that expulsion is violative of fundamental rights and the right to freedom of religion. 
• Acharya Jagdishwar Anand v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (1983): 
  • The Court held that Ananda Marga is not a separate religion but a religious denomination. And the performance of Tandava on public streets is not an essential practice of Ananda Marga. 
• M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994): 
  • The apex court held that the mosque is not an essential practice of Islam, and a Muslim can offer namaz (prayer) anywhere even in the open. 
• Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay (1954):  
  • The Supreme Court held that religious practices are as much a part of religion as religious faith or doctrines. 
  • However, the Court also stated that this protection extends only to essential and integral parts of religion. 
• Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954):  
  • This case established the "essential religious practices" test. 
  • The Court held that what constitutes an essential part of a religion is to be determined with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself. 
• Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962):  
  • The Court held that the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community had the right to excommunicate its members as it was an essential religious practice. 
• Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977):  
  • The Court held that the right to propagate religion under Article 25 does not include the right to convert another person to one's own religion. 
  • This judgment upheld the validity of anti-conversion laws. 
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) - Sabarimala Temple case:  
  • The Court held that the practice of prohibiting women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple was not an essential religious practice. 
• It emphasized that constitutional morality must prevail over religious beliefs and practices.