25 October 2025 Legal Updates

UP ANTI-CONVERSION LAW PUTS ONEROUS CONDITIONS, MANDATE TO PUBLISH DETAILS OF CONVERTED PERSON MAY NEED SCRUTINY: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Rajendra Bihari Lal & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• 17th October 2025

(d) Bench:

• J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Background and Legal Context

• This case involved a batch of petitions challenging multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The FIRs were filed under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (U.P. Conversion Act).
• The core allegation was that the accused persons were involved in the unlawful religious conversion of individuals from Hinduism to Christianity through allurement, force, and fraud.

Key Legal Issues Before the Court

• Can an FIR be quashed after the filing of a chargesheet?
• Can the Supreme Court quash criminal proceedings under its writ jurisdiction (Article 32)?
• Are multiple FIRs for the same incident permissible?
• Was FIR No. 224/2022 valid, given it was lodged by a person (a VHP leader) not specified as a "competent person" under the unamended Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act?
• Were the subsequent FIRs (Nos. 47, 54, 55, 60 of 2023) mere repetitions of the first FIR and thus liable to be quashed?

The Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision

1. On Quashing of FIRs (Legal Principles):

• The Court reaffirmed the well-settled principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), outlining the categories where the High Court or Supreme Court can quash FIRs to prevent abuse of the legal process or secure the ends of justice.
• It clarified that the power to quash is not lost just because a chargesheet has been filed. The court can examine the FIR, chargesheet, and case diary records to determine if a prima facie case exists.
• The Court held that while petitioners should ordinarily approach the High Court first, the Supreme Court can directly quash proceedings under Article 32 in cases of a glaring violation of fundamental rights.

2. On Multiple FIRs:

• Relying on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001), the Court held that there can be no second FIR for the same incident or occurrence. The "test of sameness" is applied. Any subsequent information must be treated as a statement under Section 161 CrPC and investigated as part of the first FIR. Registering a new FIR for the same incident is an abuse of the legal process.

3. On the Validity of FIRs under the U.P. Conversion Act:

• This was the most crucial part of the judgment. The Court focused on the unamended Section 4 of the U.P. Conversion Act, which stated that only an "aggrieved person" or their close blood/marriage/adoption relatives could lodge an FIR for unlawful conversion.
• The Court interpreted this provision restrictively. It held that the law intended to protect an individual's private and autonomous choice of faith (linked to Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution). Allowing any third party to complain would lead to frivolous and motivated litigation.
• Since the first FIR (No. 224/2022) was lodged by a VHP leader who was not an "aggrieved person" or his relative as defined, the FIR was declared illegal and void from its inception.

4. On the Specific FIRs and Factual Inconsistencies:

• The Court found that the subsequent FIRs (Nos. 54, 55, 60 of 2023) were virtually identical, cyclostyled copies of each other, filed in quick succession, pertaining to the same alleged mass conversion event.
• Shockingly, the complainants in these subsequent FIRs had earlier given statements (u/S 161 CrPC) during the investigation of the first FIR, stating they were not victims but were part of the group that had raided the church. Their U-turn made their claims unreliable.
• The Court also noted serious discrepancies in witness affidavits and statements, calling the investigation lacking in bona fides and seemingly aimed only at substantiating the initial, illegal FIR.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the petitions and appeals. It quashed all the impugned FIRs (Nos. 224/2022, 47/2023, 54/2023, 55/2023, 60/2023, and 538/2023) and all consequential criminal proceedings arising from them.