Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra quashed multiple FIRs registered against the Vice Chancellor and officials of the Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS), Prayagraj, in connection with alleged mass religious conversions in Fatehpur. While clarifying that the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, was not under consideration, the Court expressed prima facie concerns over provisions that compel individuals to make pre- and post-conversion declarations and require a police inquiry under the supervision of the District Magistrate. Observing that such provisions impose an onerous burden on those seeking to change their faith, the Bench remarked that the law appears to draw State authorities into personal and private choices. It further held that liberty of belief and worship forms an intrinsic part of India’s secular character and constitutional framework.

The matters arise from allegations of mass religious conversion at the Evangelical Church of India, Fatehpur, said to have occurred on 14 April 2022. An initial complaint by a functionary of a social organisation described ongoing conversion activity, alleged use of deceit, threats, and document tampering, and characterised his role as that of an informant to the authorities rather than a victim.

Also Read: S.27 Evidence Act | Only Disclosure Leading To Recovery Of Weapon Admissible, Not Statement Linking Weapon To Crime: Supreme Court

While investigation of the first complaint was underway, an individual later described as a victim alleged he had been induced with cash, employment at a university, free medical treatment and marriage prospects, and that he converted in December 2021 before returning to his prior faith; he also alleged the involvement of senior university officials. Another victim alleged that during a large gathering at the church he and others were promised education, jobs, medical treatment and gifts; he further claimed that his identity document was taken and altered to reflect a Christian name and that he was threatened with harm if he reported the matter.

Within minutes of one such complaint, a further complaint was recorded at the same police station with materially similar allegations relating to the same 14 April 2022 event. The Court noted these later complaints were filed within a span of less than 24 hours and were near reproductions of each other, differing mainly in the informants’ particulars.

Separately, in December 2023, another complaint was registered at a different police station alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code (attempt to murder, extortion and insult) along with provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The statutory framework invoked across the complaints included IPC provisions for promoting enmity, criminal intimidation, cheating, forgery and conspiracy, and Sections 3 and 5(1) of the U.P. Conversion Act. The Court recorded that Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act—amended in 2024—originally limited who could lodge such complaints.

Materials referenced from the investigation included case-diary statements under Section 161 CrPC and affidavits. The Court recorded concerns over “cyclostyled” or prototype witness statements across files, identical victim statements recorded more than a year apart, and affidavits whose credibility was questioned.

The Court recorded: “the constitutional validity of the provisions of the U.P. Conversion Act does not fall for our consideration in the instant case.”

It observed: “the provisions of the said Act pertaining to the pre and the 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.”

It stated: “the District Magistrate has been legally obligated to direct a police enquiry in each case of intended religious conversion.”

It recorded: “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 recorded: “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.”

It further stated: “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.”

On quashing powers, the Court stated: “The power to quash criminal proceedings is guided by the principle of preventing the abuse of the process of law or miscarriage of justice, and of securing the ends of justice… [and] can be done by the High Court… and even by the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, if the circumstances so require.”

On the timing of interference, it recorded: “There is no absolute rule that when the investigation is at a nascent stage, the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to quash… To prevent abuse of the process of law, it can always interfere even though the investigation is at the nascent stage.”

It added: “There is no such blanket rule putting an embargo on the powers of the High Court to quash FIR only on the ground that the investigation was at a nascent stage.”

On multiple complaints, the Court recorded: “FIR Nos. 54, 55 and 60 of 2023 respectively were lodged at the same police station within a period of less than 24 hours… except for the relevant particulars of the complainants, the three FIRs are virtual reproductions of each other… [and] pertain to the same alleged incident dated 14.04.2022.”

Regarding investigative material, it observed: “cyclostyled witness statements across different FIRs; prototype statement of different witnesses in the same FIR; false affidavits; etc. – have compelled us to exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 32 to bring an end to these proceedings.”

It stated: “it wouldn’t be prudent to allow the continuation of criminal proceedings in relation to the present FIR as well.”

Addressing who may initiate proceedings under the then-prevailing statute, the Bench recorded: “the words ‘any aggrieved person’… is qualified by the subsequent categories… any aggrieved person would be a person who would be personally aggrieved by his or her fraudulent conversion… otherwise the Section itself would become completely meaningless.”

On Article 32 maintainability, it stated: “This Court, as the highest constitutional court, has been conferred with the powers… to provide remedies against the violation of fundamental rights… [and] need not direct a petitioner to pursue an alternative remedy, when the grievance stems from the alleged violation of a fundamental right.”

The Court recorded: “FIR No. 224/2022 suffers from an incurable legal defect, having been lodged by a person otherwise not competent in law to do so as per the then prevailing statutory scheme… the only course that would meet the ends of justice is to quash the said FIR as well as all consequential legal proceedings emanating therefrom, albeit in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 32… FIR No. 224/2022… and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.”

“FIR Nos. 55/2023 and 60/2023 respectively registered with the PS Kotwali, District Fatehpur are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in T.T. Antony (supra) and for this reason are hereby quashed. Any consequential proceedings emanating from the said two FIRs shall also stand terminated.”

“A writ petition under Article 32 seeking quashing of the FIR is maintainable as held in a catena of decisions of this Court… the writ petitions seeking the quashing of FIR Nos. 224/2022 and 47/2023 respectively are not only maintainable but also entertainable and are hereby allowed. All consequential proceedings emanating from FIR No. 224/2022 and 47/2023 respectively are also hereby quashed.”

“The institution of the complaint and the quality of the material gathered by the investigating authorities during the course of investigation into FIR No. 54/2023 fail to inspire any confidence… thereby making it a fit case for us to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom… 54/2023 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.”

Also Read: Madras High Court Quashes Case Against Men Who Gathered for Live Telecast of Ram Temple Consecration, Terms It Not Unlawful Assembly

“The High Court committed an error in declining to quash FIR No. 538/2023 to the extent that no offence under the U.P. Conversion Act could be said to have been made out in view of the embargo contained in Section 4… however… insofar as FIR for the alleged offences under Sections 307, 386 and 504 of the I.P.C. respectively is concerned, the matter requires further consideration… and is thus ordered to be de-tagged from the present batch.” It further recorded: “The interim protection granted to the Petitioner earlier by this Court shall continue till the matter is finally heard and decided.”

“The Registry is directed to list SLP (Crl.) No. 8615 of 2024 before this very Bench after obtaining necessary orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. The appeal(s)/petition(s) stand allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.”

Finally, the Bench recorded: “Before we part with the matter, we must place on record our appreciation for the efforts put in by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, including their office juniors and staff members, in providing us with structured compilations of all the documents, submissions and judgments relevant for deciding the present batch of matters.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Siddharth Dave, Senior Counsel; Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Senior Counsel; Ms. Rebecca John, Senior Counsel; Mr. Vairawan A.S., Advocate, Pallavi Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India; Garima Prashad, Additional Advocate General.

Case Title: Rajendra Bihari Lal and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1249
Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) No. 123 of 2023 (with connected matters)
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala; Justice Manoj Misra.