RAJENDRA BIHARI LAL AND ANOTHER (PETITIONERS) v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS (RESPONDENTS)

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 141/2023

(J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ)

The Supreme Court, through a comprehensive judgment penned by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, addressed a bunch of cases involving three writ petitions under Article 32 and nine criminal appeals emanating from special leave petitions, all of which are related to six FIRs filed against the petitioners under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (“U.P. Conversion Act”). The main petitioners were Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal, Vice-Chancellor of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS), Prayagraj, and other individuals related to the university, alleged to have been involved in or facilitating forced religious conversion to Christianity.

The initial and main FIR was filed at PS Kotwali, Fatehpur on 15 April 2022 on a complaint made by Himanshu Dixit, Vice-President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. He claimed that en mass religious conversions from Hindu to Christianity were going on at the Evangelical Church of India, Hariharganj, on Maundy Thursday (14 April 2022). The complaint states that approximately 90 Hindus were being converted by deceit, coercion, and fraudulent inducement, purportedly under the guidance of Church authorities associated with SHUATS. The complainant stated that he had seen the ceremony of conversion and alleged that it had been going on for 34 days. The FIR under Sections 153-A, 506, 420, 467, 468 IPC and Sections 3 and 5(1) of the U.P. Conversion Act was filed.

One Sarvendra Vikram Singh filed an FIR on 20 January 2023, stating that he personally was persuaded to convert to Christian faith by SHUATS members. He claimed that he was made promises of money, jobs, and marriage proposals to get converted, and that later he got converted on 25 December 2021 at the Presbyterian Church, Fatehpur. The FIR accused a number of SHUATS officials, including Dr. R.B. Lal, and charged under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 3 and 5(1) of the U.P. Conversion Act.

Later, four more FIRs were filed, accusing identical offences of conspiracy and illegal conversion activities, primarily on the basis of overlapping facts and allegations. The petitioners objected to these FIRs before the Allahabad High Court, which, through a series of orders between February and August 2023, refused to quash them. This necessitated the petitioners to come to the Supreme Court in the form of Special Leave Petitions and Article 32 writ petitions, alleging abuse of process and multiplicity of proceedings.

The Court noticed and explored some legal concerns, such as:

1. Whether a number of FIRs concerning the same alleged offence could be upheld.
2. Whether FIRs filed by individuals indirectly affected (i.e., not victims of conversion) were maintainable under the unaltered Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act, 2021.
3. Whether criminal proceedings could be dismissed pursuant to Article 32.
4. Whether FIRs could be dismissed following the filing of a charge sheet.
5. The extent of inherent powers of quashing under Section 482 CrPC and Article 32.

It was argued by petitioners that the FIRs were politically motivated and maliciously filed to harass the Christian minority and SHUATS officers. Petitioners maintained that since the complainant in FIR was a VHP functionary, he lacked locus standi, the unamended Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act permitted only the person aggrieved, their blood relations, or legal guardian to make a complaint. They also alleged that all the subsequent FIRs were repetitive and premised on the same alleged acts constituting double jeopardy and abuse of process. The Government of Uttar Pradesh resisted the petitions on the grounds that each FIR was grounded on different factual situations and distinct complainants, and hence could not be regarded as overlapping. It was also urged that FIR filed by a putative victim of inducement, was maintainable of itself and called for investigation to preserve public order and avoid exploitation.

The court went on to analyse exhaustively the scheme and intention of the U.P. Conversion Act, 2021, observing that it was passed to deter conversions by means of force, fraud, or inducement. The Court delineated between genuine proselytization which was shielded by Article 25 and coercive conversions, which could legitimately be regulated by the State.

On the issue of maintainability, the Court held specifically that Section 4 (pre-amendment) restricted the right to file a complaint to the converted person or his relatives, and not others. As FIR was filed by a VHP functionary who had no connection with the supposed victims, it was declared to be not maintainable in law as it existed then. All proceedings consequent thereto were, therefore, quashed.

As far as FIRs in multiples are concerned, the Court invoked the principle and ruled that when a single FIR about a particular transaction has been registered, no subsequent FIR upon the same facts can hold; subsequent complaints should be considered as statements under Section 162 CrPC or as part of further investigation. In line with the same, the Court quashed FIRs Nos. 54/2023, 55/2023, and 60/2023, which were verbatim similar.

But one FIR being on the complaint of an individual stating direct inducement to convert, was held judicially valid and directed to continue as per law. Similarly, another FIR regarding distinct charges of assault and extortion under Section 307 IPC, was held to be different and permitted to continue.

The Court also reiterated that quashing of FIRs under Article 32 ought to be exercised judiciously, and normally petitioners ought to approach the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. However, due to the multiplicity and blatant illegality of certain FIRs, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to stave off abuse of process.

By this comprehensive judgment, the Supreme Court has reiterated the constitutional balance between protection of freedom of religion and protection against coercive conversions and also warned against the abuse of criminal process for political or sectarian ends.