New Delhi: The controversial anti-conversion law in Uttar Pradesh enacted in 2021 continues to serve as a source of harassment for several sections of the population in the state. Its powers have been enhanced by an inconsistent view taken by courts in several rulings, on who exactly is empowered to make a complaint alleging ‘forced conversions.’
On July 13, Moradabad police (in Uttar Pradesh) arrested a Christian pastor and three others on charges of unlawfully converting marginalised Hindus to Christianity through allurements and inducements.
The police booked pastor Kulwant Singh, a resident of Udhamsingh Nagar in Uttarakhand, and three locals – Jaypal, Amarjeet and Mukesh – under the anti-conversion law. According to the FIR lodged at Thakurdwara police station, the three men were accused of regularly holding Christian satsangs in the village Ramanwala with the intent to convert Hindus and deter them from carrying out Hindu puja in their homes. The FIR, seen by The Wire alleges that they would summon Kulwant Singh from the neighbouring state and try to “lure Hindus to Christianity by offering them cash, refrigerators, televisions, cycles, motorcycles and sewing machines,”
Each person who converted would receive Rs 25,000 while the pastor would get Rs 35,000 and other emoluments through “outside funding” for the conversions, the FIR alleges.
Who complained?
What is notable, however, was that the police did not lodge the criminal case on the complaint of any of the alleged persons who were unlawfully converted, or so to say, the aggrieved.
The FIR was lodged on the complaint of Pankaj Singh Pal, the district co-secretary of the extremist outfit, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, an affiliate of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). In his police complaint, he claimed that over the years, the accused persons had unlawfully converted 50-60 persons from 15 families in the village.
This criminal case lodged in Moradabad under the anti-conversion law in Uttar Pradesh on the complaint of a Hindutva activist has once again drawn attention to the illegal role played by third-party elements in lodging FIRs under the controversial law even when they are not directly aggrieved or have been converted unlawfully.
The case is a good example of the ruthlessness with which the law has been enforced in the state since 2020, wherein Hindu right-wing elements have concertedly lodged police complaints against people, in most cases, Christians, Dalits and backward caste individuals, on the allegations of forcibly converting poor Hindus to Christianity.
Right-wing activists have intervened legally in cases even when they are not aggrieved by the alleged offence.
Also read: The Interface of ‘Love’ and ‘Jihad’ Is a False Indian Articulation
What does the law say about complainants?
The law is clear when it comes to defining who is qualified to lodge an FIR against unlawful conversion. Section 4 of the controversial Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, enacted by the Adityanath-led BJP state government, states that “any aggrieved person, his or her parents, brother, sister or any other person related to him or her by blood, marriage or adoption” would be considered competent to lodge an FIR under the law. Despite a clarification by the Allahabad high court on more than one occasion in individual petitions over the past year, police continue to register FIRs against unlawful conversion on the complaints of right-wing activists and other third-party elements, including elected local representatives, ruling party office-bearers and police personnel themselves.
Perturbed by this trend, in March, an NGO Legal Aid & Social Development Educational Society (LASDES) filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the high court praying that the court issue directions to the state Director General of Police (DGP) commanding him to ensure strict compliance of Section 4 so that FIRs are registered only at the behest of the aggrieved person and to put a stay on such actions till the petition was disposed off.
This PIL, a copy of which is with The Wire, states that the failure of the state machinery in adhering to Section 4 of the law was “resulting in serious exploitation” of its provisions by “anti-social elements to fuel their ulterior motives.” The petitioners said that since there had been “a spate of illegal FIRs” filed by third-party complainants, there was a need for certain safeguards, i.e., measure or guidelines for registration of FIRs to “keep a check on the spewed hate of vigilante groups arising out of intolerance.”
The PIL also attached details of 33 such FIRs from September 2021 to August 2023, a period of two years to support its assertion.
The trend had “spread a chilling sense of fear within local communities and religious groups,” said LASDES.
On March 21, hearing the PIL, a bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Om Prakash Shukla of the Allahabad high court issued a notice to the state government. This matter is pending.
Section 4 interpreted ambiguously
Section 4 of the law circumscribes who can lodge a complaint.
But the inconsistent manner in which different benches of the court have interpreted this crucial Section 4 of the law has added to the confusion around it, which has consequently opened doors for vigilantism and interference by unaffected parties intent on using the stringent law to harass individuals and minority communities. This had led to the victimisation of people voluntarily and willfully participating in religious and social activities and gatherings.
- On February 17, 2023 a division bench of Justices Anjani Kumar Mishra and Gajendra Kumar, hearing a petition filed by one Jose Prakash George and 36 others from Fatehpur, who were booked under the unlawful conversion law, ruled that the embargo under Section 4 of as to who can lodge an FIR under the offence of unlawful conversion (Section 3) was absolute. Two FIRs had been lodged against George and others in the same matter; one on January 23, 2023 by an alleged victim of unlawful conversion and the second by an office-bearer of the VHP on April 15, 2022. The FIRs related to an alleged offence of mass conversion.The court ruled that the VHP activist was not a competent person to lodge the FIR.The bench explained that the words “any aggrieved person” in Section 4 of the law could be interpreted to mean any person, especially since there was no provision under the Indian Penal Code or CrPC which bars or prohibits any person from lodging an FIR regarding a cognizable offence. However, the court was quick to clarify that the phrase “any aggrieved person” was qualified by the subsequent categories and the words his, her parents, brother, sisters or blood relations by marriage and adoption included.“Therefore, the words ‘any aggrieved person’, if taken by themselves are extremely wide. The scope of the said term is completely whittled down by subsequent categories and therefore, it has to be said that any aggrieved person would be a person but is personally aggrieved by his or her fraudulent conversion be it an individual or in a mass conversion ceremony. Any interpretation to the contrary would render the remainder of Section 4 after the words ‘any aggrieved person ‘ wholly redundant and also render the Section itself completely meaningless,” the Bench said.
- A similar approach was taken by Justice Shamim Ahmed in the case of Jose Papachen on September 6, 2023, when he ruled that a BJP district secretary of Ambedkar Nagar district Chandrika Prasad who had lodged the FIR under alleged unlawful conversion was not a competent person to do so. In the FIR lodged at Jalalpur police station, Prasad alleged that Papachen and another person, a woman, were converting Dalit people through various inducements and allurements.After a lower court on March 3, 2023 rejected Papachen’s bail application, he approached the HC, where his counsel emphasised on Section 4 of the law. Justice Ahmed said that the complainant had “no locus” to lodge the FIR as provided under Section 4 of the law, using it as one of the arguments to overturn the lower court’s order and granted bail to Papachen and co-accused Sheeja.
The court’s observations, however, have not prevented police from registering similar FIRs merely on the complaints of right-wing activists, who were not aggrieved in the case in any manner.
Also read: Lies, Insistence and Disregard for Evidence: The Journey of ‘Love Jihad’ Laws
- On November 29, 2023, an FIR was lodged in Sonbhadra district against 42 persons including Christian social workers and teachers from Chennai and Vijaywada under the unlawful conversion law. The FIR was registered on the complaint of Narsingh Tripathi, a VHP office-bearer from the Brahmin community. In his complaint, he alleged that the accused persons, most of whom belonged to the Dalit, OBC and tribal communities, misled and psychologically manipulated poor and illiterate tribal people into converting to Christianity through financial allurements and promise of other material benefits.A high court division bench of Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Gajendra Kumar on February 1, 2024 directed the state government and its police to file a counter affidavit after the accused, while pleading to get the FIR quashed, argued that the complainant did not have any locus standi to lodge it in the first place. This particular case is still under consideration.
- In another case, in March this year, a bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Narendra Kumar Johari faced a similar predicament when a person accused of unlawful conversion in Barabanki by three persons linked to the VHP, approached it with the plea that the FIR be quashed. The FIR was lodged on February 5 at Deva police station against the manager and pastor of a Christian school and people linked to a church. It was registered on the joint complaint of Brijesh Kumar Vaishya, district president of the VHP, Rahul Kumar Verma, district secretary of the VHP and Akhand Pratap Singh, district co-convenor of the Bajrang Dal. According to their complaint, the accused persons held prayer meetings to convert Dalit men, women and children through undue influence, allurements and coaxing.
While hearing the accused Daisy Joseph’s petition, the HC bench noted that the Section 4 of the law required consideration, as under the Code of Criminal Procedure FIR can be lodged by any person “because the purpose of lodging an FIR is to inform the police about the commission of any offence.”
Moreover, the court said, the law also deals with mass conversion and looking into the nature of the offences covered, it is “a moot point” as to whether the aggrieved person mentioned in Section 4 would be the actually aggrieved person i.e. the person who is sought to be converted or has been converted or “any person belonging to a particular community who comes to know about the commission of any such offence involving conversion of individual persons or especially mass conversion.”
The court said that it was “difficult” for it “at least at this stage to accept the contention” of the accused persons but kept the window for reinterpretation open and directed police to not arrest the accused unless there was “sufficient and cogent evidence” against them regarding mass conversion.
The judges acknowledged that the accused petitioner had relied upon the judgment by a coordinate bench in the Jose Prakash George case (above) on February 17, 2023. The court said that it would like to consider whether the said judgment (February 17, 2023) required consideration by a larger bench. The question before it was whether a “literal interpretation” of Section 4 was sufficient or “was it permissible to read it in a different manner so as to subserve the object” of the Act, and “whether a literal interpretation frustrates the object of the said Act.”
- In a more recent case, on July 12, Justice Pankaj Bhatia of Allahabad HC granted bail to two persons from Hardoi who had been arrested under unlawful conversion charges on the complaint of Bablu Kumar Raidas, a municipality councillor in Sandila in the same district. In the FIR lodged on June 23, Raidas alleged that the accused persons led by one Naresh Kumar would hold congregations in their residence and gather people of the Dalit community with the intent of converting them to Christianity through allurements.The accused persons, who had no previous criminal history, filed a bail application in the High Court and submitted that the complainant did not have the competent authority to lodge the FIR. The High Court, while granting them bail, noted that it had considered the “mandate” of Section 4 coupled with the fact that the allegations in the FIR were “bald without any material.”
To VHP or not to VHP
The Wire also spoke to Pankaj Pal Singh, the complainant in the Moradabad case. He told us that he lodged the FIR as he felt it was his duty to intervene against alleged unlawful conversion of lower caste Hindus through “foreign funded” satsangs.
Singh cursed the “poor Hindus” who, according to him, were falling into the trap of “greed of money” laid by Christian missionaries. He also told us that he had lodged a police complaint as the aggrieved persons were unwilling to approach the police due to their self-interest.
While Singh said he had intervened in a personal capacity, and not as a VHP office-bearer, the FIR told a different story. In the FIR, he identified himself as a VHP office-bearer and said that the VHP and Bajrang Dal would never tolerate unlawful conversion. “If Christians convert the Hindu samaj, Bajrang Dal will be forced to start an andolan,” he said.
The Moradabad case is also likely to end up in the high court.
The ambiguity is likely to continue till the state high court sets the record straight and issues clear directives to the lower courts, police and government officials stating clearly who is legally allowed to lodge an FIR under the law for the offence of unlawful conversion, more importantly, who is not.
