The Supreme Court’s decision to quash multiple FIRs under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, is a welcome affirmation of legal sanity. The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra rightly identified “glaring infirmities” and procedural lapses in these FIRs, emphasizing that criminal law cannot be wielded as a tool of harassment. Justice Pardiwala’s 158-page judgment meticulously dismantles weak prosecutions, underscoring the Court’s role as the ultimate protector of constitutional rights. The verdict is unambiguous: repeated registration of FIRs in the same incidents constitutes an abuse of investigative powers and exposes accused individuals to unwarranted harassment. No credible evidence supported these FIRs, and crucially, no victims had approached authorities with complaints. By quashing five FIRs and detagging one unrelated case for fresh adjudication, the apex court has safeguarded citizens from frivolous legal attacks. Yet, while this judgment is legally sound, it raises a critical question: are Hindus expected to silently endure coercion and inducements in matters of faith? One of the FIRs alleged that nearly 90 Hindus were lured to convert to Christianity through money and other enticements. While the Court dismissed these cases on procedural grounds, the broader societal issue remains—does the law protect Hindus from illegal conversions, or only shield the accused from harassment? Mahatma Gandhi’s idealistic vision urged Hindus to show tolerance towards minorities, even in the face of aggression. But Gandhi’s pacifism cannot be misinterpreted as a justification for allowing inducements or coercion.
India’s Constitution guarantees freedom of religion under Article 25, and the UP anti-conversion law exists precisely to protect citizens from undue influence, fraud, or coercion. Protecting Hindus’ right to resist illegal conversion is not intolerance—it is a constitutional duty. The Court’s judgment protects innocent individuals from harassment, but it also highlights a worrying vacuum. Inducements to convert, whether financial, social, or political, remain a threat to religious freedom. The law must empower citizens to assert their faith without fear of reprisal or bureaucratic apathy. Failure to do so risks eroding public trust in institutions meant to enforce justice. Safeguarding freedom of religion is not merely about quashing flawed FIRs. It requires ensuring that no individual, especially from the Hindu majority, is coerced into abandoning their faith under pressure or enticement. Legal safeguards must operate proactively, not just reactively, to prevent manipulation disguised as “voluntary conversion.” The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the right to constitutional remedies against harassment. Now, lawmakers, police, and society must ensure that this protection also strengthens the ability of Hindus to resist coercion, fraud, or inducement. Liberty and equality are hollow promises unless they defend the right of every citizen to practice their faith freely, without fear or manipulation. Justice has been served in these quashed FIRs. The next challenge is to ensure that legal and social frameworks protect Hindus from being subtly coerced into surrendering their faith—without compromising the very principles of religious freedom that the Constitution enshrines.
