The Allahabad High Court has ruled that while the Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate their religion, this right does not extend to forced or fraudulent religious conversions.

Justice Vinod Diwaker made the observation while dismissing a petition seeking to quash an FIR lodged against four individuals accused under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021.

The FIR was filed following allegations that the accused attempted to convert individuals to Christianity by offering financial incentives and free medical treatment.

The Court declined to intervene, stating that the allegations were serious in nature and warranted a thorough police investigation.

In its judgment, the Court underscored the constitutional commitment to religious freedom under Article 25, which protects the voluntary practice and propagation of religion, subject to considerations of public order, morality, and health. “The use of the word ‘freely’ in Article 25 highlights the voluntary nature of religious belief and expression,” the Court noted.

However, it clarified that the Constitution does not condone conversions carried out through coercion, deceit, or undue influence. "Such practices cannot be protected under the guise of religious propagation," the Court observed, adding that safeguards are essential to preserve social harmony and individual rights.

The judgment also highlighted that asserting the superiority of one religion over another contradicts the essence of Indian secularism, which is built on the foundation of equal respect for all faiths. “The state must maintain a principled equidistance from all religions and must not favour or identify with any one faith,” the bench stated.

Addressing the Uttar Pradesh law enacted in 2021 to curb unlawful religious conversions, the Court noted that the legislation aims to uphold public order and moral integrity. The Act targets conversions obtained through misrepresentation, force, coercion, allurement, fraudulent means, or marriage used solely for conversion purposes.

“The objective of the law is to prevent exploitation and manipulation that threaten social cohesion and public peace,” the Court observed.

The bench also examined a key legal question regarding who can file a complaint under Section 4 of the Act. Although the provision generally allows only the victim or their relatives to lodge a complaint, the Court clarified that a police officer — specifically the station house officer — may also file an FIR. This interpretation was made in light of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which allows the police to act in cases of cognizable offences.

The judgment was delivered on May 7.