Who Is A Competent Person To Lodge An FIR As Per S. 4 Of UP 'Anti-Conversion' Law?: Allahabad High Court Explains

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday explained the scope of Section 4 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021 [person competent to lodge FIR] as to who can lodge an FIR regarding the commission of an offence under Section 3 of the Act.The bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed held that as per the mandate of the said provision, only a person who has been converted, his/ her parents, brother, sister, or any other person who is related to him/ her by blood, marriage, or adoption may lodge a first information report pertaining to the allegation of such conversion and no one else.In essence, the Court held that as per Section 4 of the Act, an aggrieved person or his close relatives (as mentioned in the section) may only file an FIR alleging the commission of an offence under Section 3 of the U.P. Prohibition of Religions Conversion Act, which prohibits conversion of religion as also its attempt by traced misrepresentation, force, undue influence, and/or allurement, as also its abatement and conspiracy. "The words 'any aggrieved person' is qualified by the subsequent categories and the words his, her parents, brother, sisters or blood relations by marriage and adoption included. Therefore, the words 'any aggrieved person', if taken by themselves are extremely wide. The scope of the said term is completely whittled down by subsequent categories and therefore, it has to be said that any aggrieved person would be a person but is personally aggrieved by his or her fraudulent conversion be it an individual or in a mass conversion ceremony. Any interpretation to the contrary would render the remainder of Section 4 after the words "any aggrieved person " wholly redundant and also render the Section itself completely meaningless."The Court made these observations while granting bail to two persons, Christians by religion (Jose Papachen And Sheeja), who have been accused of being instrumental in the conversion of religion (from Hinduism to Christianity) by various allurement amongst the communities of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. They have been booked under Sections 3 and 5 (1) of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act and Section 3(1) (dha) of the SC/ST Act. Earlier, their bail application was rejected by the Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Ambedkar Nagar in March this year, following which, they moved the HC.Before the High Court, their counsel argued that false allegations regarding allurement and undue influence for the purposes of mass conversion had been made against them and they were just providing free treatment to the patients in the hospital which can not be said to be a temptation for the purposes of mass conversion.It was also submitted that the accused were providing good teachings, distributing Holy Bible books, encouraging children to get education, organizing assemblies of villagers and performing “Bhandara” and doing other good works which can't be termed as allurement. It was further argued that the embargo under Section 4 as to who can lodge an F.I.R. regarding an offence under Section 3 of the Act, 2021 is absolute and in the instance case, the complainant -Zila Mantri of the ruling party- was neither the aggrieved person nor his/her parents, brother, sister or any other person, who is related to him/her by blood, marriage or adoption as provided under Section 4 of the 2021 Act.Opposing their bail application, the AGA for the state argued that appellants used to allure people by undue influence just to convert people from other religions to Christianity to carry out mass conversions. However, he did not dispute the fact that the complainant in the instant case was not a competent person to lodge an FIR. Taking into account the allegations against the accused persons and the arguments advanced by both parties, the Court observed that there was no material to show that the appellants had used any undue influence or allurement to the said villagers for mass conversion.The Court noted that instead appellants were involved in providing good teachings to children and promoting the spirit of brotherhood amongst the villagers and hence, there doesn't appear to be the existence of any material which would suggest conversion by use of force."...the complainant has no locus to lodge the present F.I.R. as provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2021 and there also appears force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that providing good teachings, distributing Holy Bible books, encouraging children to get education, organizing assembly of villagers and performing “Bhandara” and instructing the villagers not to enter into altercation and also not to take liquor do not amount to allurement," the Court observed as it noted that the complainant in the case was not the competent person to lodge an FIR u/s 4 of the 2021 Act.Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the accused were directed to be released on bail.Case title - Jose Papachen And Another vs. State Of...

Who Is A Competent Person To Lodge An FIR As Per S. 4 Of UP 'Anti-Conversion' Law?: Allahabad High Court Explains

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Who Is A Competent Person To Lodge An FIR As Per S. 4 Of UP 'Anti-Conversion' Law?: Allahabad High Court Explains

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers