Damoh School Hijab Row: MP High Court Upholds Conversion FIR Against Staff, Ex-Office Bearers; Says Allegations Not Inherently Absurd

The Madhya Pradesh High Court refused to quash an FIR against former office bearers, teacher and peon of a school in Damoh accused of imposing compulsory hijab and certain religious practices on school students, observing that the allegations cannot be termed inherently absurd or improbable of being offences. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 361]

In doing so the court ruled that the veracity of the allegations will depend upon appreciation of evidence and it cannot be determined by selectively reading the FIR while ignoring the statements and other material collected during investigation. 

The court was hearing petitions filed by two former officer bearers, a school teacher and a peon. The FIR was lodged under Sections 295-A(Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 120-B(criminal conspiracy) and 506(Criminal intimidation) Part-II IPC, Sections 75(Punishment for cruelty to a child) and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Sections 3 (Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion) and 5(1) (Intimation or Declaration of Conversion) of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021.

The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi held that the allegations contained in the FIR, read with the evidence collected, cannot be considered inherently absurd, improbable, or incapable of constituting the offences alleged. 

The court noted that the FIR contained specific allegations on the manner in which the students were allegedly required to follow a "particular dress code and religious practices and further alleges that such acts were imposed against their wishes and by threat or coercion".

It noted that the FIR specifically records the statement of a student that she had been studying in the school from nursery onwards; that from Class VI onwards Hijab and Dupatta formed part of the prescribed dress, "that wearing Hijab was compulsory" and that students were allegedly stopped from wearing Tilak and Kalawa; further that Urdu was taught compulsorily; and that prayers were recited during assembly.

"The FIR further alleges that these practices were imposed by threatening the students and that the complainant's religious sentiments were thereby hurt. The contention of the applicants that the allegation of wearing Hijab by itself cannot constitute an offence under the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act is, in isolation, unexceptionable.

Mere wearing of a particular dress, without the statutory ingredients of conversion or an attempt to convert by the prohibited means, cannot automatically constitute an offence. However, the prosecution case is not founded solely upon the wearing of Hijab. The allegations include compulsory dress, alleged prohibition of Tilak and Kalawa, compulsory religious practices and prayers, and allegations of threat and coercion. Whether these allegations are true, whether they were voluntary or compulsory, whether they were motivated by an intention to convert and whether the statutory ingredients are ultimately established are matters which depend upon appreciation of evidence". 

The court also observed that the question whether the present investigation under the M.P. Freedom of Religion Act is without jurisdiction and whether the allegations concern completed conversion or an attempt to convert in the context of the material collected in the present case, cannot be conclusively determined by "selectively reading the FIR while ignoring the statements and other material collected during investigation". 

It further observed that the applicants' contention that certain parents or students subsequently furnished affidavits stating that the books supplied to the students were Government-prescribed books and that no religious education beyond the syllabus was imparted cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for quashing the FIR.

"Such affidavits constitute material which may be considered by the trial Court along with the statements recorded during investigation and the evidence already adduced. This Court, in exercise of Section 528 BNSS, cannot select one piece of material and reject the remaining prosecution material for the purpose of determining whether the accused are ultimately guilty or innocent," the court added. 

With respect to the two petitioners-former office bearers who had claimed to have no role in school-affairs during the relevant period the court said that whether they exercised any influence over its functioning, and whether the material collected by the investigating agency is sufficient to attribute the alleged offences to them are essentially factual questions.

"Upon consideration of the entire material, this Court finds that the allegations in the FIR, read with the material collected during investigation, cannot be said to be inherently absurd, inherently improbable or incapable of constituting the offences alleged. The defence raised by the applicants involves disputed questions of fact, appreciation of statements of students and other witnesses, the role played by individual accused persons, the nature of the alleged conduct and the applicability of the statutory provisions to the proved facts. These matters fall within the domain of the trial Court" the court said. 

The State submitted that the FIR was registered following an enquiry by a Committee constituted by the Collector, which led to the addition of offences under the Freedom of Religion Act and Section 120B IPC. 

The petitioners argued that merely requiring girl students to wear hijab or a particular dress code does not constitute religious conversion or the attempt to do so under the MP Freedom of Religion Act. The petitioners also objected to the addition of Juvenile Justice Act provisions, arguing that they were not members or office bearers of the school management committee during the relevant period. 

The petitioners further contended that the investigation under the MP Freedom of Religion Act was without jurisdiction as the FIR was lodged by an enquiry committee rather than a person allegedly converted or subject to attempted conversion as provided under Section 4 of the Act. 

The petitions were dismissed. 

Case Title: Shalinder Kumar Jain v State of Madhya Pradesh, Anas Athar v State of MP, Abdul Wasim Bari v State of MP

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 361

Case numbers: MCRC-1001-2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49886 of 2023, MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49886 of 2023, MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52398 of 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52398 of 2025

For Shalinder and Abdul Wasim: Advocate Zamir Mohammad Shah 

For Anas and others: Senior Advocate Shashank Shekhar with Advocate Samresh Katare

For State: Deputy Advocate General B.D. Singh

Click here to read/download the Order