Supreme Court Quashes UP Anti-Conversion FIRs, Citing 'Travesty of Justice' and Abuse of Process

New Delhi – In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for the application of state anti-conversion laws, the Supreme Court of India has quashed multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in Uttar Pradesh against the Vice-Chancellor and other officials of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS). The Bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, held that the criminal proceedings were an "abuse of the investigative process" based on "completely incredulous material" and could not be permitted to continue.

The 158-page judgment, authored by Justice Pardiwala, meticulously deconstructs the series of FIRs filed under the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, and various IPC sections. The Court concluded that allowing the prosecution to proceed against Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal and others would amount to a "travesty of justice," sending a potent message against the misuse of criminal law for harassment.

"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," the Court emphatically stated, a sentiment echoed multiple times throughout the verdict.

---

Procedural Infirmities and the Question of Locus Standi

At the heart of the Court's decision was a fundamental legal defect in the initial FIR (No. 224/2022). This FIR, alleging a mass conversion of 90 Hindus on Maundy Thursday, was lodged not by an alleged victim but by Himanshu Dixit, the Vice President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).

The petitioners, represented by a team of Senior Advocates including Siddarth Dave and Rebecca M John, argued that this violated Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act as it stood at the time. The unamended provision stipulated that an FIR could only be lodged by the person who was allegedly converted, or by their immediate family members or relatives.

The Supreme Court concurred, holding that the special law—the U.P. Act—must prevail over the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Bench rejected the Attorney General's argument for a broader interpretation, noting that the legislative safeguard in Section 4 was deliberately included to "weed out vexatious complaints by busybodies."

The judgment underscored the rationale behind this limitation:

“...To permit the initiation of criminal proceedings at the instance of strangers or unrelated third parties would amount to an impermissible intrusion into this protected sphere of individual freedom and would open the door to frivolous or motivated litigations, thereby diluting the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and freedom of religion.”

This finding rendered the primary FIR legally unsustainable from its inception.

---

An 'Abuse of Investigative Powers': The Cascade of Repetitive FIRs

The Court found that subsequent FIRs filed in 2023 were a thinly veiled attempt by the police to overcome the incurable legal defect of the first one. Multiple FIRs were registered concerning the same Maundy Thursday event, with some filed just minutes apart at the same police station.

Applying the well-settled legal principle laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala , the Court held that registering multiple FIRs for the same incident is impermissible. "The existence of multiple FIRs for the same alleged incident stamps an abuse of investigative powers," the Bench observed, adding that such a practice "undermines the fairness of the investigative process and exposes the accused to unwarranted harassment."

The Court was particularly critical of the police's conduct, noting:

"Having noticed the glaring infirmities in the registration of FIR No. 224/2022, it was not open to the police to overcome the difficulty by getting persons with vested interests to make complaints regarding the same alleged incident after a considerable delay and thereafter initiate a fresh round of investigation against largely the same set of accused persons."

One complainant, who filed a subsequent FIR (No. 54/2023) posing as a victim, was found to have given a contradictory statement in the initial FIR, where he identified himself as a VHP member accompanying the original informant. The Court called this a "complete U-turn," making it an "easy guess" as to the circumstances under which the new FIRs were orchestrated.

---

'Hopelessly Inadequate' Evidence and 'Cyclostyled' Statements

Beyond the procedural illegalities, the Supreme Court delved into the quality of the investigation and found the evidence collected to be "woefully inadequate" and lacking credibility. The judgment highlighted the "cyclostyled" nature of witness statements, which were mechanically reproduced across different FIRs, often with identical errors.

In a glaring example, the statement of one witness, Sanjay Singh, claimed his name was changed from "Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi” to "Rajesh Kumar Samson.” Inexplicably, another witness, Pramod Kumar Dixit, made the exact same claim about his name being changed from "Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi” to "Rajesh Kumar Samson.” This mechanical duplication, the Court found, exposed the investigation as an attempt to "somehow substantiate the allegations" rather than uncover the truth.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the evidence presented, including videos, only depicted religious gatherings, prayer meetings, and Bible preaching. It clarified a crucial point of law:

“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... 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.”

This distinction is a critical takeaway for practitioners and law enforcement, establishing that the mere act of propagation or charity, without evidence of allurement, coercion, or fraud as defined by the Act, does not constitute a criminal offense.

---

Intervention under Article 32 and Segregation of Charges

The State of U.P. had contested the maintainability of the writ petitions, arguing that the petitioners should have approached the High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed this objection, reaffirming its role as the "ultimate guarantor" of fundamental rights under Article 32 of the Constitution. It held that when a grievance stems from an alleged violation of fundamental rights in "extraordinary facts," the Court need not direct a petitioner to an alternative remedy.

While quashing five of the six FIRs for offenses under the U.P. Conversion Act and related IPC sections, the Court adopted a nuanced approach for the sixth FIR (No. 538/2023). This FIR included distinct allegations of threat, extortion, and an attempt to murder (firing a shot). The Bench ruled that while the conversion-related charges in this FIR were also invalid as they were not brought by a victim, the other IPC offenses required separate consideration. Consequently, it detagged this matter for a future hearing, ensuring the interim protection from arrest for the accused continues.

This landmark ruling serves as a powerful judicial check on the potential for misuse of anti-conversion statutes. By emphasizing strict adherence to procedural safeguards, demanding credible evidence, and denouncing the use of the criminal justice system as a tool for harassment, the Supreme Court has set a high bar for prosecutions under these contentious laws.