corporate law
The Allahabad High Court, the largest high court in the world, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Kailash vs State of UP on July 1, 2024. The court expressed serious concern regarding the rampant unlawful conversion of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST), and economically disadvantaged individuals to Christianity across Uttar Pradesh. The Bench unequivocally stated that if the ongoing conversions during religious gatherings are not curbed, the majority population in India could face a decline.
The Single Judge Bench, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, made these critical observations while dismissing a bail plea under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The court emphasized that while Article 25 of the Constitution of India ensures “freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion," it does not permit conversion from one faith to another. The Bench clarified that "propagation" is aimed at promoting religion but does not include converting individuals from their faith.
The case involved an application for bail from Kailash, who was accused in Case Crime No. 201 of 2023, under Section 365 IPC and Section 3/5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The prosecution claimed that Kailash took Ramphal, the informant's brother, to a gathering in Delhi intended for "well-being" but led to his conversion to Christianity.
Prosecution's Narrative: The informant alleged that a large group of individuals from their village were converted to Christianity during the gathering, and Ramphal did not return home as promised.
Defense's Argument: The defense claimed that Ramphal had not converted and only attended the gathering. They argued that the evidence against Kailash was unreliable, as others present at the gathering were responsible.
In analyzing the situation, the court noted that there were serious allegations suggesting that gatherings were being used to convert individuals on a large scale. It underscored the risk posed by continued conversions: “If this process is allowed to be carried out, the majority population of this country would be in minority one day,” prompting the need for an immediate cessation of such gatherings.
The court reiterated that the constitutional guarantee of Article 25 does not encompass religious conversion, emphasizing that the widespread unlawful conversion activities targeting SC/ST and economically disadvantaged groups must be addressed urgently.
Ultimately, the Bench concluded that Kailash was not entitled to bail, asserting that the allegations warranted serious legal scrutiny.
The judgment underscores the necessity for a national prohibition on conversions. There is a clear call for the government to take initiative, akin to amendments in penal laws, to combat the concerning demographic shifts resulting from mass conversions. Such actions are vital not just to protect religious integrity but also to ensure the nation’s security.
As illustrated by this case and the court's decision, addressing religious conversions and safeguarding the diverse demographic of India is crucial. The judgment serves as a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding religious freedom in the country, highlighting the need for vigilance against practices that may threaten social stability.