What Happened
- The Allahabad High Court raised serious concerns about the misuse of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, noting that "fake FIRs" were being lodged under the law to harass individuals — particularly in the context of interfaith relationships.
- The Court observed that the law, intended to prevent coercive or fraudulent religious conversions, was being invoked without adequate factual basis, turning it into an instrument of personal vendetta or communal pressure.
- Judges flagged that the non-bailable nature of offences under the Act meant that arrests were being made on the basis of motivated complaints, leaving individuals without immediate recourse to bail, causing custodial harassment.
- The Court called on authorities to exercise greater scrutiny before registering FIRs under the Act and emphasised that the power of the state cannot be weaponised for private interests.
- The observation reignited the debate about the constitutionality and implementation of state-level anti-conversion laws, and their intersection with the fundamental rights of personal liberty, religion, and marriage.
Static Topic Bridges
UP Anti-Conversion Law (2021): Provisions and Constitutional Context
The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (assented by Governor: 4 March 2021; published in state gazette: 5 March 2021) prohibits conversion through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, fraudulent means, or solely for the purpose of marriage. It is among the most stringent state anti-conversion laws in India.
- Core prohibition: Conversion by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or fraudulent means, or solely for marriage, is unlawful.
- Punishment: General case — imprisonment of 1–5 years + fine of ₹15,000. If victim is a minor, woman, SC/ST member — 3–10 years imprisonment + higher fine.
- 2024 Amendment: Increased maximum punishment to life imprisonment in aggravated cases.
- Non-bailable offences: Cognisable and non-bailable — meaning police can arrest without a warrant, and bail requires a court order.
- Prior permission requirement: Any intended voluntary conversion must be declared to the District Magistrate (DM) 60 days in advance; failure to notify is an offence.
- The Act applies to all religious conversions, not just conversions to a specific religion.
- Burden of proof shifts: Under Section 12, the burden of proving that a conversion was not unlawful falls on the person who caused the conversion — a reversal of the normal criminal law presumption of innocence.
Connection to this news: The High Court's concern about fake FIRs is directly linked to the Act's non-bailable, cognisable nature — which means that even an unverified complaint triggers mandatory police action, giving informants disproportionate power to cause harm.
Fundamental Rights and Religious Freedom Under the Constitution
India's Constitution protects religious freedom under Articles 25–28, which guarantee the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion. However, these rights are subject to regulation in the interests of public order, morality, and health. Anti-conversion laws are legally justified as preventing "forced" conversions — but must be balanced against voluntary choice.
- Article 25(1): "All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion" — subject to public order, morality, health, and other Fundamental Rights provisions.
- The Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of MP (1977) upheld state anti-conversion laws, distinguishing the right to "propagate" religion (which exists) from the right to "convert" another person (which does not).
- Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty; the right to choose one's religion has been recognised by courts as part of personal liberty.
- Article 14: Equality before law — challenges to selective enforcement of anti-conversion laws are grounded in Article 14, arguing that the law disproportionately targets specific communities.
- Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
- Several petitions challenging anti-conversion laws in various states are pending before the Supreme Court, raising issues of federalism, personal liberty, and religious freedom [Unverified — exact status as of April 2026].
Connection to this news: The Allahabad HC's observation that fake FIRs are being filed under the anti-conversion law raises Article 21 concerns — custodial harassment pursuant to motivated complaints directly violates the right to personal liberty without due process.
FIR Registration and Due Process: Criminal Procedure Framework
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — now substantially replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 — the police are generally obligated to register an FIR for cognisable offences. The Supreme Court's ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2013) mandated mandatory FIR registration for cognisable offences, limiting police discretion to refuse registration.
- A cognisable offence allows police to arrest without a warrant and investigate without Magistrate's order.
- Non-bailable offence: Bail cannot be granted by the police; the accused must approach a court. In heinous-offence FIRs, bail requires judicial consideration of the seriousness of the charge.
- Lalita Kumari v. UP (2013): Supreme Court mandated mandatory FIR registration for cognisable offences; preliminary inquiry permissible only in specific categories (matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence, corruption, and offences with abnormal delay in reporting).
- Anti-conversion offences under the UP law are cognisable and non-bailable — meaning Lalita Kumari mandates registration and police can arrest immediately.
- The Supreme Court has repeatedly held (including in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014) that arrest is not automatic just because an offence is cognisable — police must apply their mind to necessity of arrest, particularly in cases punishable with less than 7 years imprisonment.
Connection to this news: The High Court's concern intersects two Supreme Court precedents: Lalita Kumari (which forces FIR registration, limiting scope to refuse fake complaints) and Arnesh Kumar (which limits automatic arrest). The gap between these two positions is where harassment occurs — FIR must be registered, but arrest should not be automatic.
Key Facts & Data
- UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021: Enacted 5 March 2021; amended in 2024 to increase maximum punishment to life imprisonment.
- Punishment: 1–5 years (general); 3–10 years (minor/woman/SC/ST victim); up to life imprisonment (aggravated cases post-2024 amendment).
- Section 12 of the Act: Reverse burden of proof on accused.
- Article 25(1): Right to profess, practise, propagate religion — subject to public order, morality, health.
- Rev. Stainislaus v. State of MP (1977): Supreme Court upheld state anti-conversion laws as valid regulation.
- Lalita Kumari v. UP (2013): Mandatory FIR registration for cognisable offences.
- Arnesh Kumar v. Bihar (2014): Police must consider necessity of arrest; cannot arrest mechanically in offences under 7 years imprisonment.
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: Replaced CrPC; broadly retains the cognisable/non-bailable distinction.