The Supreme Court, while quashing FIRs lodged against the Vice Chancellor and other officials of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Science (SHUATS), Prayagraj, over alleged mass religious conversions to Christianity, expressed serious reservations about certain provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra noted that the law imposes an “onerous burden” on individuals who wish to adopt a faith different from their own. Emphasizing that the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship is a fundamental element of India’s secular character, the Court observed that the Act’s provisions might invite constitutional scrutiny.

Although the constitutional validity of the 2021 Act was not under examination in this case, the Court made several prima facie observations. It pointed out that the requirement for individuals to make a declaration before the District Magistrate prior to conversion results in significant state interference in personal matters. The judges further noted that the Act obligates the District Magistrate to order a police inquiry in every case of intended conversion, which raises concerns about privacy and individual autonomy.

The Court also questioned whether the provision mandating public disclosure of personal details of individuals who have converted to another religion is compatible with the right to privacy upheld in landmark judgments such as K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.

Quoting from the order, the Bench remarked:

“The provisions of the U.P. Conversion Act relating to pre- and post-conversion declarations seem to introduce a very onerous procedure for an individual seeking to adopt a new faith. The involvement of State authorities is conspicuous, as the District Magistrate is legally bound to order a police inquiry in each case. Furthermore, the requirement of publishing personal details of every person who has converted may need deeper examination to determine its conformity with the privacy regime embedded in the Constitution.”

During the hearing, the Bench orally remarked that several portions of the 2021 Act appear to infringe fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, particularly Article 25, which ensures the freedom of religion.

Key Provisions of the Act

Under Section 8, the Act prescribes both pre- and post-conversion procedures.

• Pre-conversion: Any person intending to convert must submit a declaration 60 days in advance to the District Magistrate, affirming that the decision is free from force, coercion, undue influence, or allurement. The individual or priest performing the conversion must also provide a one-month advance notice. The Magistrate must then order a police inquiry. Failure to comply attracts imprisonment of up to three years and a fine of at least ₹10,000.
• Post-conversion: Within 60 days of conversion, the individual must again submit a declaration containing details such as permanent address, place of residence, and nature of the conversion process. The authority is required to display this declaration publicly, and the convert must personally appear within 21 days to verify the details.

Observations on Secularism and Fundamental Rights

Reiterating that the term “secular” in the Preamble forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution, the Court highlighted that Article 25 not only guarantees the freedom to hold religious beliefs but also the right to express, practice, and propagate those beliefs.

Referring to Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Bench reaffirmed that secularism is an integral constitutional value. Citing K.S. Puttaswamy and Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., the judges emphasized that freedom of conscience, privacy, and personal autonomy — including the right to choose one’s faith or life partner — lie at the heart of the constitutional scheme and cannot be subjected to excessive state control.

The Court reminded that religion is a matter of personal faith and conscience, and state interference must be minimal. It observed that the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship, as enshrined in the Preamble, represents the very foundation of India’s secular character.

Related Developments

A constitutional challenge to the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 is already pending before the Supreme Court in petitions filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace and Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind. Similarly, the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021 has faced judicial scrutiny, with the Gujarat High Court observing that the law interferes with individual autonomy and the right to marry freely under Article 21. The High Court had earlier passed an interim order clarifying that the Act would not apply to interfaith marriages solemnized without force, fraud, or allurement.

In conclusion, while the Supreme Court refrained from ruling on the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh law, it cautioned that several provisions appear to intrude upon personal liberty, autonomy, and privacy — values that form the cornerstone of India’s secular and constitutional framework.