On Tuesday, the Allahabad High Court denied bail to an individual accused of illegal conversion, stating that the right to freedom of conscience and religion does not encompass the right to convert others.

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal opined that while the Constitution of India grants citizens the right to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, it does not permit the conversion of others' religions.

"The Constitution confers on each individual the fundamental right to profess, practice, and propagate their religion. However, the individual right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be interpreted as a collective right to proselytize; the right to religious freedom belongs equally to both the person converting and the individual being sought to be converted," the Court stated.

The Court made similar observations in an order passed on July 1.

The Court reiterated these observations in its order passed on July 9 while addressing a bail plea moved by Shriniwas Rav Nayak, a resident of Andhra Pradesh, in a case registered under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

According to the prosecution, the informant had been invited to the house of a co-accused in February this year, where he saw many other people, mostly from the Scheduled Caste community. The accused had allegedly urged the informant to leave Hinduism and accept Christianity, promising that this would end his suffering and improve his life.

The informant fled the scene and reported the incident to the police, leading to the registration of the case. Nayak's counsel argued that he had no involvement in the alleged mass conversion, asserting that he was merely a domestic help from Andhra Pradesh working at the house of one of the co-accused. It was also pointed out that the First Information Report (FIR) did not mention the presence of any ‘religion converter’ as defined under Section 2(1)(i) of the anti-conversion law.

However, the State contended that Nayak had actively participated in the conversion, asserting that a case had been made against him.

After considering the arguments and the material on record, the Court noted that the 2021 law explicitly prohibits conversion from one religion to another through misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, or allurement.

"The Constitution clearly envisages and permits its citizens the right to freedom of religion, including the rights to profess, practice, and propagate their religion. However, it does not allow or permit any citizen to convert others from one religion to another."

In this context, the Court found that the villagers had been allured and misrepresented into converting to Christianity.

Addressing the argument that no ‘religion converter’ was present at the scene, the Court clarified that the 2021 law does not require a ‘religion converter’ to be present for a conversion to take place