Malayali priest, seven others get bail in conversion case

The recent grant of bail to a Malayali priest and seven others in a conversion case in Shingori, following a complaint by members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal, brings to the fore complex issues surrounding religious freedom, anti-conversion laws, and the role of non-state actors in India. This incident is a microcosm of a larger national debate, crucial for understanding the interplay between constitutional rights, state legislation, and socio-political dynamics.

At its core, the matter revolves around Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. This fundamental right, however, is not absolute and is subject to public order, morality, and health, and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The controversy arises when the act of 'propagating' religion is perceived or alleged to cross into 'forcible' or 'fraudulent' conversion, which many states have legislated against.

The background to such incidents is rooted in India's diverse religious landscape and the historical context of religious conversions. While conversion has been a part of Indian society for centuries, concerns about 'allurement' or 'coercion' have led to the enactment of 'Freedom of Religion Acts' in various states. Odisha was one of the first states to enact such a law in 1967, followed by Madhya Pradesh in 1968. In recent years, there has been a renewed push for and implementation of stricter anti-conversion laws, often termed 'love jihad' laws, by several BJP-ruled states. These include the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2020; the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022; and similar laws in Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. These laws typically criminalize conversion by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or fraudulent means, and often require prior intimation to district authorities for conversion.

In this specific incident, the key stakeholders include the accused individuals, primarily the Malayali priest and his associates, who were attending a prayer meet. Their actions, whether merely practicing their faith or engaging in conversion activities, are at the center of the legal dispute. On the other side are the complainants, members of the VHP and Bajrang Dal, prominent right-wing Hindu organizations. These groups often act as self-appointed guardians of Hindu faith and culture, actively opposing what they perceive as religious proselytization by Christian missionaries or Islamic groups. Their complaints often initiate police action, highlighting the significant influence of non-state actors in shaping public discourse and legal proceedings related to religious matters.

This case matters profoundly for India as it underscores the ongoing tension between individual religious freedom and the state's power to regulate conversion. It also highlights the potential for misuse of such laws, where genuine religious practice or voluntary conversion might be misconstrued as illegal. The bail grant, while a procedural relief, does not resolve the underlying legal and social questions. The burden of proof in many anti-conversion laws often falls on the accused to demonstrate that the conversion was not unlawful, a departure from the usual principle of 'innocent until proven guilty.' This can disproportionately affect religious minorities and create an atmosphere of fear.

Historically, the Supreme Court in *Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977)* upheld the validity of anti-conversion laws, stating that Article 25 grants the right to 'propagate' one's religion, but not the right to convert another person. The Court clarified that the right to propagate means to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets, but not to convert another person to one's own religion. This judgment has been a cornerstone for subsequent state legislations.

Looking ahead, such incidents will continue to fuel debates on secularism, minority rights, and the extent of state intervention in personal religious choices. The future implications include potential for increased communal polarization, challenges to India's secular fabric, and continuous legal battles over the interpretation and application of these laws. The judiciary will play a crucial role in balancing constitutional freedoms with legislative intent, ensuring that the laws are not arbitrarily applied to suppress legitimate religious activities. The broader theme of 'unity in diversity' is tested when allegations of forced conversions lead to social friction and legal action, impacting the collective social harmony and governance of a pluralistic nation.