Mass Conversion Threatens Public Order, State Can Act Without Victim's Complaint: Allahabad High Court

In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has held that a police officer is legally empowered to register an FIR under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, even if the complainant is not a direct victim or relative.

The bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar dismissed a plea filed by one Durga Yadav seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him under the provisions of the IPC and the 2021 Act, holding that the expression “any aggrieved person” under Section 4 of the 2021 Act includes a Station House Officer (SHO) who receives credible information about mass religious conversions carried out through coercion, allurement, or fraud.

Yadav had approached the court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the FIR lodged against him and others in Jaunpur district. The FIR accused him of orchestrating unlawful religious conversions at a church in Vikrampur by offering money and free medical treatment to poor villagers, allegedly under the guise of Christian prayer meetings.

One of the main arguments raised by Yadav’s counsel was that the FIR was illegal because it had been filed by the SHO and not by an “aggrieved person” as defined under Section 4 of the Act, 2021. According to the petitioner, only the victim or their close relatives could file such a complaint.

Rejecting this argument, the court held that Section 4 must be interpreted in light of its legislative purpose — to prevent fraudulent religious conversions. Court noted that the term “any aggrieved person” is not narrowly defined, and its placement in the provision, followed by a comma, indicates a broader category that includes informants like police officers acting to maintain public order.

Justice Diwakar observed that “a narrow interpretation to the expression 'any aggrieved person' would make the Act otiose,” particularly in cases involving mass conversions of economically vulnerable communities. He further held that the 2024 amendment to the Act — which allows “any person” to report such offences — should be viewed as clarificatory and applicable to pending cases.

The state had argued that reading down the SHO’s authority to file an FIR would frustrate the very object of the Act and compromise the government’s ability to act against coercive conversions.

Citing constitutional safeguards under Article 25, the court emphasized that religious freedom does not extend to conversions achieved through misrepresentation, force, or inducement. “The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 has been enacted, aimed at maintaining public order, moral integrity, and health in alignment with Article 25 of the Constitution,” the court said.

On facts, the court held that the FIR and the statements of witnesses disclosed cognizable offences. Accordingly, it refused to interfere in the investigation. However, the court protected the applicant from judicial custody, subject to the terms and conditions as may be decided by the trial court.

“Unlawful conversion is not only an offence against an individual and their relatives, but also the State- particularly in cases of mass conversion of socially and economically deprived section of the society- when such conversions are carried out through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, fraudulent means, the threat to the societal fabric individuals or communal well-being becomes even more grave. In such circumstances, the State cannot remain a silent spectator,” the court concluded.

Case Title: Durga Yadav vs State of UP and Another with connected matter

Download judgment here