S.1 Short title, extent and commencement

(1) This Act may be called the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

S.2 Definitions

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

S.5 Punishment for contravention of provisions of section 3

¹[ 5. (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 3 shall, without prejudice to any civil liability, be punished with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees:

S.7 Offences to be non-bailable and cognizable

¹[ 7. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 46 of 2023), all offences under this Act shall be cognizable and non-bailable and triable by the Court of Sessions.

S.8 Declaration before conversion of religion and pre-report about conversion

(1) One who desires to convert his/her religion, shall give a declaration in the form prescribed in Schedule-I at least sixty days in advance, to the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate specially authorized by the District Magistrate, that he wishes to convert his/her religion on his/her own and with his/her free consent and without any force, coercion, undue influence or allurement.

S.9 Declaration post conversion of religion

(1) The converted person shall send a declaration in the form prescribed in Schedule-III within sixty days of the date of conversion, to the District Magistrate of the District in which converted person resides ordinarily.

S.10 Punishment for violation of provisions of Act by an institution or organization

(1) If any institution or organization violates the provisions of this Act, the person or persons in charge of the affairs of the organisation or the institution, as the case may be, shall be subject to punishment as provided under section 5 and the registration of the organization or the institution under any law for the time being in force may be cancelled by competent authority upon reference made by the District Magistrate in this regard.

S.11 Parties to offence

When an offence is committed under this Act, each of the following shall be deemed to have taken part in committing the offence and shall be guilty of the offence, and shall be charged as if he has actually committed the said offence, that is to say,

S.12 Burden of proof

The burden of proof as to whether a religious conversion was not effected through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage, lies on the person who has caused the conversion and, where such conversion has been facilitated by any person, on such other person.

S.13 Power to remove difficulties

(1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the State Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, as appear to it, to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty:

S.14 Power to make rules

The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act.

S.15 Repeal and saving

(1) The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 is hereby repealed.

S.4 Person competent to lodge First Information Report

¹[ 4. An information relating to the contravention of the provisions of the Act may be given by any person and the manner of giving such information shall be the same as given in Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act no. 46 of 2023).]

Legal Comments

• "Section 4 – Competent informant" - Section 4 permits “any aggrieved person” or specified relatives to lodge an FIR; interpretation debates exist about who qualifies as aggrieved and the impact on standing [Jose Papachen VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. ].

• "Section 4 – Broadening informant scope (amended context)" - Amended discussions indicate that “any person” may file information under BNSS 2023 cross-reference, expanding who can initiate actions; reflects purposive aims to safeguard conscience and prevent unlawful conversions [Durga Yadav vs State of U.P.].

• "Section 2/3 – Core unlawfulness definitions" - The Act defines misrepresentation, coercion, allurement, and undue influence as pathways to unlawful conversion, with Section 3 criminalizing conversions achieved by these means; leaves no room for protected religious freedom to authorize coercive conversions [Shriniwas Rav Nayak VS State of Uttar Pradesh].

• "Constitutional framing – Religious freedom vs. prohibition" - Courts have stressed that religious freedom is protected but does not authorize unlawful conversions; Act carves out a narrow permissible space by prohibiting coercive or fraudulent conversions [Shriniwas Rav Nayak VS State of Uttar Pradesh].

• "Mass conversion context – gravity of offence" - Mass or organized conversions through coercion or misrepresentation attract stronger scrutiny; courts have treated such acts as more serious, justifying strict enforcement and potential denial of bail where prima facie evidence exists [Shriniwas Rav Nayak VS State of Uttar Pradesh].

• "FIR admissibility – locus and standing issues" - The admissibility of FIRs under Section 4 has been contested where complainants lack proper standing; judicial decisions emphasize that standing requirements aim to prevent frivolous or vexatious complaints [Rajendra Bihari Lal VS State of Uttar Pradesh], with related observations on the need to curb misuse of process (T.T. Antony principle).

• "Punctuation and textual interpretation – Section 4 syntax" - Interpretive disputes exist around the comma after “any aggrieved person,” raising questions about whether this broadens the class of complainants or confines them to a separate category; purposive interpretation favors a broader informant base to achieve statutory aims [Durga Yadav vs State of U.P.].

• "Statutory amendments – Amended Section 4 (2024 BNSS context)" - The Amended Act, 2024 clarifies that “any person” may provide information under BNSS, aligning with widened informant participation and procedural access in cognizable offences [Durga Yadav vs State of U.P.].

• "Judicial restraint on bail – impact of Section 3/5 on bail" - Courts have denied bail where prima facie evidence supports unlawful conversion under Sections 3/5, citing risk of ongoing wrongdoing and potential witness interference; bail considerations remain fact-sensitive but lean toward restraint in mass-conversion scenarios [Shriniwas Rav Nayak VS State of Uttar Pradesh], [Rajendra Bihari Lal VS State of Uttar Pradesh].

• "Relief for the complainant and procedural safeguards" - Appellate judgments stress that complainants who are aggrieved or related may lodge FIRs, yet procedural safeguards must ensure complaints are not used for political or personal gain; courts scrutinize the locus of the complainant (e.g., Zila Manti example) and ensure proper FIR viability [Jose Papachen VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. ].

• "Link to police power and preventive action" - Provisions in later BNSS-related interpretations reinforce police authority to register, investigate, and act upon offences, signaling a robust enforcement framework that supports Sections 3, 5, 10, and 11 of the Act, especially in cases of unlawful mass conversion [Durga Yadav vs State of U.P.].

• "Scope of operation – territorial reach" - The Act applies to the entire state of Uttar Pradesh; enforcement interpretations emphasize that it extends to all relevant conversions within the state .

• "Punishment framework – baseline penalties" - The Act provides imprisonment and fines, with higher penalties for mass conversions or aggravated circumstances; standard punishments reference ranges up to 10 years or more in specific offences, subject to the nature of coercion, misrepresentation, or fraudulent means (varies by provision and amendment) , [Shriniwas Rav Nayak VS State of Uttar Pradesh].

• "Judicial caution – quashability and FIR validity" - Some decisions have quashed related FIRs when they were repetitious or lacked standalone factual basis for a single incident, signaling that courts will scrutinize procedural compliance and avoid duplicative proceedings [Rajendra Bihari Lal VS State of Uttar Pradesh].

• "Interplay with other statutes – BNSS 2023/2024 alignment" - The UP anti-conversion regime interacts with BNSS provisions; amendments aim to harmonize procedural pathways with Indian constitutional guarantees and public order considerations [Durga Yadav vs State of U.P.].

• "Interfaith relationships and protection gaps" - Writ petitions and case law discuss the tension between personal relationships across faiths and the anti-conversion regime, underscoring the need for careful assessment of alleged coercion versus voluntary, peaceful engagement in education or social outreach [Alfiya Azmil VS State of U. P. ].

• "Public order and preventive policing" - Substantive provisions recognize the preventive policing role in safeguarding public peace during sensitive religious outreach, reinforcing the justification for police-led investigation in suspected unlawful conversions [Durga Yadav vs State of U.P.].

• "Limitations on misuse of informants" - Jurisprudence emphasizes that informant status must be legitimate; political or unrelated actors cannot automatically qualify, aligning with Section 4's protective aim against misuse of the process [Jose Papachen VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. ].

• "Right to liberty vs. preventive aims" - The Act seeks to balance Article 25 freedoms with compelling state interests in preventing unlawful conversions; courts have recognized both the necessity of enforcement and the risk of overreach, guiding nuanced application in individual cases [Shriniwas Rav Nayak VS State of Uttar Pradesh].

• "Enforceability across cases – consistency and scope" - The jurisprudence reflects ongoing debates about consistent application of Section 4 and related sections, particularly in cases involving community dynamics and alleged coercive practices; courts encourage consistent standards to avoid arbitrary enforcement [Rajendra Bihari Lal VS State of Uttar Pradesh], [Durga Yadav vs State of U.P.].

• "Key takeaway for practitioners" - Section 4 is central to who can file complaints; amendments and interpretive debates broaden or clarify this reach, while Section 3/5 define unlawful conversion conduct; bail considerations hinge on prima facie evidence and the seriousness of alleged coercive tactics [Shriniwas Rav Nayak VS State of Uttar Pradesh], [Rajendra Bihari Lal VS State of Uttar Pradesh].

• "Core reference points" - UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (Sections 2, 3, 4, 5) with subsequent amendments and BNSS cross-references shape the current interpretive landscape; case law examples illustrate practical implications for bail, FIR validity, and informant scope [Shriniwas Rav Nayak VS State of Uttar Pradesh], [Rajendra Bihari Lal VS State of Uttar Pradesh], [Durga Yadav vs State of U.P.], [Jose Papachen VS State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. ].