Supreme Court defends Freedom of Religion in a landmark judgment striking down weak FIRs under UP’s 2021 anti-conversion law. The Court reaffirms constitutional conscience, warns against misuse of state power, and questions similar laws across India.
By Qalam Times News Network | New Delhi | October 19, 2025
Freedom of Religion and the Line Between State Power and Citizen Rights
Freedom of Religion — that’s the principle at the heart of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on Uttar Pradesh’s anti-conversion law. On October 17, 2025, the Court declared that five FIRs filed under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 were legally weak, procedurally flawed, and lacked evidentiary substance. The bench made it clear: criminal law cannot be weaponized to harass innocent individuals. In essence, the judgment reaffirmed that when law strays from justice, it becomes an instrument of oppression.
Freedom of Religion and Constitutional Boundaries
The two-judge bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra raised profound constitutional concerns about several provisions of the Act. The Court held that any state intrusion into a person’s faith or religious choice violates the freedom of religion enshrined in Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. This right, the judges emphasized, is a matter of conscience, not a subject to political or administrative convenience.
The Court also noted that mandatory declarations before and after conversion, police verification, and approval from the District Magistrate are forms of unnecessary intrusion into an individual’s private life. Religion and belief, the judges observed, belong to the inner domain of human existence — and the State has no authority to peer into that space.
Third-Party Complaints and the Threat of Misuse
The Supreme Court further stated that provisions allowing third parties to file complaints turn criminal law into a dangerous tool of harassment. In the cases under review, none of the alleged “victims” had lodged complaints themselves — the FIRs were filed later by individuals acting with malice and political motives. The Court, therefore, quashed all such FIRs, making a strong statement: justice must rest on principle and truth, not on prejudice and suspicion.
A Larger Political and Legal Context
The judgment comes at a time when several Indian states — including Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Rajasthan — have enacted similar anti-conversion laws. Rajasthan’s newly introduced “Unlawful Conversion Act” even prescribes life imprisonment, allows arrests without warrant, and authorizes property seizure if a person fails to notify authorities 60 days before conversion.
Behind these laws lies not a concern for freedom of religion, but for political control. Governments justify them as safeguards against forced or fraudulent conversions — yet their sweeping reach often criminalizes personal, voluntary faith decisions. When the State begins to suspect the conscience of its citizens, trust erodes — and where trust ends, freedom becomes an illusion.
Judicial Oversight and Constitutional Supremacy
The Court underscored that when fundamental rights are at stake, citizens may directly approach the Supreme Court, which has the authority to quash any proceeding inconsistent with those rights. Justice Pardiwala, in his 158-page judgment, wrote that allowing such cases to proceed would be “a betrayal of justice itself.” This decision reaffirms that the judiciary is accountable not to the government, but to the Constitution.
Impact and Political Message
The Supreme Court also limited the effect of the UP government’s 2024 amendment that allowed “any person” to file a complaint under the Act. The bench ruled that this amendment cannot apply retrospectively — making all previously filed third-party FIRs void.
Legally, the verdict restores balance. Politically, it’s a rebuke. For Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s government, this is not just a judicial defeat but a moral reminder: when legislation conflicts with fundamental rights, it ceases to represent justice and becomes merely an exercise of power.
The Road Ahead
The bigger question now is whether other states will heed this constitutional warning. Will they realign their laws with the democratic spirit of freedom of religion? Or will the tightening grip of politics continue to suffocate civil liberties in the name of faith?
