India’s Supreme Court has quashed false criminal complaints filed against more than 90 Christians accused under the “anti-conversion” law in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The ruling also questioned the constitutionality of the law’s provisions and criticized its use to punish citizens for exercising their freedom of religion.
India’s Supreme Court, where justices exonerated 90 Christians accused in false criminal complaints under anti-conversion laws.
Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra struck down five police complaints, known as “first information reports,” or FIRs, including those registered against senior officials of a Christian institution, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences in the city of Prayagraj. The five FIRs named over 90 Christians, including some medical doctors․ Many of the accused have been jailed for months and others are out on bail, CSI has learned.
The cases were filed under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, and sections of the Indian Penal Code. In one complaint lodged in April 2022 in Fatehpur district, the vice president of the Hindu nationalist group Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Himanshu Dixit, alleged that 90 Hindus had been converted to Christianity at the Evangelical Church of India during a Maundy Thursday event. The complaint claimed that the conversions were carried out through coercion and promises of money.
The court found procedural lapses, absence of credible evidence and repeated use of the same allegations across the complaints. Justice Pardiwala, who authored the 158-page judgment, said the use of criminal law in this manner amounted to harassment of innocent individuals. He noted that many complaints lacked direct testimony from victims and were instead filed by third parties long after the alleged incidents with no clear evidence of unlawful conversion. No complainant in the quashed FIRs had personally claimed to be a victim of forced conversion.
The court ruled that continuing prosecution in these cases would be a “travesty of justice.” It added that this practice “undermines the fairness of the investigative process and exposes the accused to unwarranted harassment.”
What the court called a “travesty of justice” affects Christians across India. Uttar Pradesh, the country’s most populous state and a centre of Hindu nationalist influence, is among several states that have enacted anti-conversion laws banning religious conversions by force, fraud, or allurement. Hindu nationalist groups often invoke these laws to file complaints against Christians, which police frequently act on without clear evidence, leading to swift arrests.
Though Christians comprise just 2.3 percent of India’s population, compared to the nearly 80 percent who are Hindu, they are often targeted under claims of “forcible” conversions, a narrative driven by Hindu nationalist propaganda. In 2024, India saw 834 documented attacks on Christians, an average of more than two per day and the highest ever recorded, according to the United Christian Forum.
The Supreme Court also raised questions about the larger legal framework of the anti-conversion law. It flagged the requirement to notify district authorities 60 days in advance and the legal obligation for a police inquiry before any conversion. Following the conversion, the law mandates another declaration to authorities and public display of personal details, including home address and place of conversion. These provisions interfere with individual autonomy and privacy, the court suggested.
The court referred to the 2017 judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which recognized privacy as a fundamental right. It also cited the 2018 ruling in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M, which upheld individual autonomy in matters of faith and personal relationships.
The court stated that liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, as guaranteed in the Indian constitution’s preamble, must be protected from excessive state interference.
The justices also noted that Article 25 of the Constitution allows every citizen the right not only to follow their own religious beliefs but also to propagate them. The court described religion as a matter of personal faith and affirmed that individual choice in religious matters is protected under constitutional law.
The constitutional validity of the anti-conversion law was not directly under review in this case, but a separate challenge to the law is pending before the court.
