The recent decision of the Allahabad High Court denied any relief to Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal, Vice-Chancellor of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS), and seven others in an FIR filed against them. The accusation pertained to allegedly offering inducements to someone for converting to Christianity. The bench, comprising Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Gajendra Kumar, also stated that at first glance, Sections 3 and 5 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 do not appear to be blatantly unconstitutional or clearly unconstitutional.
Brief Facts:
The Court was addressing a Criminal Writ plea filed by eight individuals who sought protection from arrest, the cancellation of the FIR, and a declaration that Sections 3, 5, and 12 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, are in violation of the Constitution of India.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Counsel for the Petitioner contended that though the main offence against the petitioners is violation of the provisions of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, no offence is disclosed because the provisions of law contained in Section 8 and 9 of the Act, which are mandatory have not been complied with. Section 8(7) provides that any conversion without compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in sub-sections 1 to 4 of Section 9 shall render any conversion, void. Therefore no religious conversion actually took place.
The second contention put forth by the Petitioner was regarding challenge to the vires of Section 3, 5 and 12 of the said Act. Significantly, based on the Supreme Court's decisions in the cases of Health For Millions Trust vs Union Of India (2013) and Bhavesh D. Parish & Other vs UOI and another (2000), the petitioners' Senior Counsel argued that since the petition challenges the validity of Section 3, 5, and 12 of the 2021 Act, which are clearly unconstitutional or unjust, an interim order can be issued in favor of the petitioners while the petition is pending.
Observations of the Court:
Upon a perusal of the FIR, this Court find that direct allegations of allurement having been offered by the petitioners to the first informant and, therefore, in their considered opinion, the allegation, prima facie, constitute an offence under Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned first information report cannot be quashed, till such time, the primary relief prayed for in the writ petition, namely striking down of Section 3 as unconstitutional, is granted. The Court failed to see any justification for granting any interim order to the petitioners as the provisions of Section 3 & 5 prima facie do not appear to be glaringly unconstitutional or ex facie unconstitutional.
Nevertheless, the Court acknowledged that certain sections of the Act are being contested and, as a result, the respondents are permitted to submit counter affidavits within a two-week period. In light of this, the Court instructed that the petition be listed for admission or hearing following the completion of these filings.
The decision of the Court:
The Allahabad High Court quashed the writ petition and denied to grant the interim order.
Case Title: Dr R.B. Lal And 7 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Gajendra Kumar
Case no.: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1634 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Anuj Srivastava,Sr. Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.,Kamla Singh,Vishal Tandon
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
