Supreme Court Quashes UP Anti-Conversion FIRs, Citing 'Abuse of Process' and 'Incredulous Material'

New Delhi – In a significant ruling that scrutinizes the application of state anti-conversion laws, the Supreme Court of India has quashed a series of FIRs registered in Uttar Pradesh against the Vice-Chancellor and other officials of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS). A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held that the criminal proceedings were an "abuse of the process of law," founded on "completely incredulous material," and amounted to a misuse of criminal law as a "tool of harassment."

The judgment, delivered in the case of Rajendra Bihari Lal & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. , provides a critical analysis of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, emphasizing its procedural safeguards and clarifying that religious gatherings and charitable works, by themselves, do not constitute a criminal offence.

Background: A Barrage of FIRs

The case involved a batch of appeals challenging six FIRs lodged against Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal, the Vice-Chancellor of SHUATS, and other university personnel. The allegations primarily revolved around mass religious conversions, purportedly in violation of the UP Act and various IPC sections.

The first FIR (No. 224/2022) was filed on April 15, 2022, by Himanshu Dixit, the Vice President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. It alleged a mass conversion of 90 individuals at the Evangelical Church of India on Maundy Thursday. Crucially, the complainant was not an alleged victim or a relative, a point that became central to the Court's findings.

This was followed by a series of other FIRs, several of which were registered in quick succession and contained repetitive allegations. For instance, FIRs 54/2023 and 55/2023 were lodged at the same police station within minutes of each other, mirroring the claims of the first FIR. Another FIR (No. 47/2023) was filed by an individual claiming he was allured with offers of cash, a job, and marriage to convert to Christianity.

The Supreme Court's Scathing Assessment of the Investigation

The Supreme Court dismantled the prosecution's case by meticulously examining the legal validity of each FIR and the credibility of the evidence collected. The bench delivered a powerful indictment of the investigative process, which it found to be aimed not at discovering truth but at substantiating pre-existing allegations.

"It seems that the entire process of investigation was not an attempt to uncover the truth of the allegations, but rather to find ways to somehow substantiate the allegations levelled in the FIR," the Court observed.

The investigation was marred by what the bench termed "cyclostyled" witness statements. The Court noted that statements were mechanically reproduced across different FIRs, with identical language and even duplicated errors. In a glaring example, two different witnesses—Sanjay Singh and Pramod Kumar Dixit—both claimed their names were forcibly changed from "Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi" to "Rajesh Kumar Samson." This lack of genuineness led the Court to conclude that the materials "fall hopelessly short of the standard necessary for permitting criminal prosecution to proceed."

Primacy of Special Law and Procedural Safeguards

A key legal question addressed was the locus standi to file a complaint under the UP Act. Section 4 of the Act, as it stood before its 2024 amendment, stipulated that an FIR for unlawful conversion could only be lodged by the victim, their parents, siblings, or any other person related by blood, marriage, or adoption.

The first FIR, initiated by a VHP office-bearer, was therefore deemed legally unsustainable. The Court rejected the argument by Attorney General R. Venkataramani that the general provisions of the CrPC, which allow for third-party complaints, should prevail. The bench held that the UP Act is a special law, and its specific provisions must override the general law. The Court further reasoned that this restriction was a deliberate "legislative safeguard to weed out vexatious complaints by busybodies."

The Court inferred that the subsequent FIRs were strategically registered to overcome this "incurable legal defect" in the initial complaint, with some complainants who had previously given contradictory statements now "masquerading as the victims." For example, the complainant in FIR 54/2023 had, in the investigation of the first FIR, stated he was a VHP member who arrived on the scene after receiving information, not a victim of conversion. His later claim to be a victim, made after a nine-month delay, was found to be a "complete U-turn" and highly suspect.

Religious Gatherings and Charity are Not Offences

The Supreme Court drew a clear line between prohibited activities and legitimate religious and charitable work. After reviewing the evidence, including videos, the bench found nothing more than instances of religious gatherings and Bible preaching.

"We do not find from a reading of the U.P. Conversion Act that organization of religious gatherings or doing charity work in the name of religion has also been made a criminal offence. No provision in the IPC prohibits such activities too," Justice Pardiwala noted in the judgment.

In the context of FIR 47/2023, the only evidence of "allurement" was a Bible verse (Psalm 2:8) being cited in a gathering. The Court was perplexed as to how this could be construed as a criminal act of inducement, stating, "We are at a loss to understand as to how such religious gathering could be found to be in contravention to the provisions of the law."

The Court also observed that no irregularities in foreign funding were pointed out by the prosecution. It clarified that "receiving foreign aid and carrying out charitable work, even in the name of religion, ipso facto is not a punishable offence under any of the legislations."

Application of the T.T. Antony Principle

Reinforcing established criminal law principles, the Court applied the rule laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala to quash FIRs 55/2023 and 60/2023. This principle holds that there cannot be a second FIR for the same offence or incident. Since these FIRs were mere repetitions of the allegations in FIR 224/2022, they were held to be impermissible.

The Final Verdict and its Implications

Ultimately, the Supreme Court quashed all the FIRs in their entirety, with one exception. For FIR 538/2023, which included allegations of threats and extortion alongside conversion, the Court quashed the charges under the UP Act but kept the matter pending for further consideration of the other IPC offences.

The judgment serves as a stern reminder to law enforcement agencies against the arbitrary use of criminal law. The Court's concluding remarks were unequivocal:

"The criminal law cannot be allowed to be made a tool of harassment of innocent persons, allowing prosecuting agencies to initiate prosecution at their whims and fancy, on the basis of completely incredulous material."

This ruling is a landmark interpretation of anti-conversion statutes, reinforcing that the burden of proof remains high and that the investigative process must be fair, credible, and free from bias. For legal practitioners, it underscores the importance of scrutinizing the locus standi of complainants and the integrity of evidence in cases brought under special penal statutes. It also reaffirms the judiciary's role as a guardian against the abuse of state power and the weaponization of criminal law.