Prayagraj (UP), Denying bail to a person accused of carrying out illegal conversion, the Allahabad High Court has observed that the Constitution grants citizens the right to freely profess, practice and propagate their religion, but it cannot be expanded to interpret a collective right to "proselytize" or convert other people to one's religion.
The order was passed by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal and rejected the bail plea of Shriniwas Rav Nayak of Maharajganj, who was booked under sections 3 and 5 (1) of the Prohibition of Illegal Religious Conversion Act. Uttar Pradesh 2021.
In approving the order, the court opined that the individual right to freedom of conscience, guaranteed by the Constitution, guarantees that every person has the freedom to choose, practice and express his or her religious beliefs.
However, the individual right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be expanded to interpret a collective right to proselytize, which means attempting to convert others to one's religion, according to the court.
"The right to religious freedom belongs equally to the person who converts and the individual who seeks to convert," the court added.
It is alleged that on February 15, 2024, the informant in the case was invited to Vishwanath's house, where many villagers, mostly from the scheduled caste community, had gathered. Vishwanath's brother Brijlal, petitioner Shriniwas and Ravindra were also present.
They allegedly urged the informant to abandon Hinduism and convert to Christianity, promising relief from pain and a better life. While some villagers accepted Christianity and began praying, the informant escaped and reported the incident to the police.
Shrini's lawyer alleged that he had no connection with the alleged conversion and that he was a domestic help to one of the co-accused, a resident of Andhra Pradesh, and that he had been falsely implicated in the case.
It was also stated that no person who had converted to Christianity came forward to file a complaint.
On the other hand, the State Counsel submitted that a case was filed against the applicant under the Anti-Conversion Act, 2021.
He submitted that the petitioner came to Maharajganj where the conversion was taking place and actively participated in the conversion from one religion to another, which is contrary to law.
In its decision on Tuesday, the court noted that Section 3 of the 2021 Act clearly prohibits conversion from one religion to another based on misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion and seduction.
In view of this, taking into account the allegations leveled against the accused, the court noted that the informant was persuaded to convert to another religion and this was prima facie sufficient to deny bail to the applicant as it established the fact that a conversion program was This was happening and many villagers belonging to the scheduled caste community were converting from Hinduism to Christianity. . RAJ RT
RT
The order was passed by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal and rejected the bail plea of Shriniwas Rav Nayak of Maharajganj, who was booked under sections 3 and 5 (1) of the Prohibition of Illegal Religious Conversion Act. Uttar Pradesh 2021.
In approving the order, the court opined that the individual right to freedom of conscience, guaranteed by the Constitution, guarantees that every person has the freedom to choose, practice and express his or her religious beliefs.
However, the individual right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be expanded to interpret a collective right to proselytize, which means attempting to convert others to one's religion, according to the court.
"The right to religious freedom belongs equally to the person who converts and the individual who seeks to convert," the court added.
It is alleged that on February 15, 2024, the informant in the case was invited to Vishwanath's house, where many villagers, mostly from the scheduled caste community, had gathered. Vishwanath's brother Brijlal, petitioner Shriniwas and Ravindra were also present.
They allegedly urged the informant to abandon Hinduism and convert to Christianity, promising relief from pain and a better life. While some villagers accepted Christianity and began praying, the informant escaped and reported the incident to the police.
Shrini's lawyer alleged that he had no connection with the alleged conversion and that he was a domestic help to one of the co-accused, a resident of Andhra Pradesh, and that he had been falsely implicated in the case.
It was also stated that no person who had converted to Christianity came forward to file a complaint.
On the other hand, the State Counsel submitted that a case was filed against the applicant under the Anti-Conversion Act, 2021.
He submitted that the petitioner came to Maharajganj where the conversion was taking place and actively participated in the conversion from one religion to another, which is contrary to law.
In its decision on Tuesday, the court noted that Section 3 of the 2021 Act clearly prohibits conversion from one religion to another based on misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion and seduction.
In view of this, taking into account the allegations leveled against the accused, the court noted that the informant was persuaded to convert to another religion and this was prima facie sufficient to deny bail to the applicant as it established the fact that a conversion program was This was happening and many villagers belonging to the scheduled caste community were converting from Hinduism to Christianity. . RAJ RT
RT
