The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns over the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, observing that the law appears to impose an onerous and intrusive procedure on individuals seeking to change their religion.
A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra made the remarks while hearing a batch of petitions related to six criminal cases registered under various sections of the IPC and the anti-conversion law. The cases were filed by the Uttar Pradesh Police, including one by a member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) alleging mass conversions at a church in Fatehpur.
&ldquo;The provisions of the Act seem to introduce a very onerous procedure to be followed by an individual seeking to adopt a faith other than the one he professes. The involvement and interference of State authorities in the conversion procedure is conspicuous,&rdquo; the Bench observed.
The judges noted that the law mandates public disclosure of personal details of those converting, which, they said, &ldquo;requires deeper examination in the context of the right to privacy.&rdquo;
Reiterating the secular nature of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court referred to the Preamble and Article 25, which guarantee freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion. &ldquo;The Preamble is of extreme importance and must be read in the light of its noble and grand vision,&rdquo; the Bench said, adding that secularism has been part of India&rsquo;s basic structure since the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment in 1973.
The judges stressed that the Constitution grants every citizen liberty of thought, belief, faith, and worship, describing this as an essential expression of India&rsquo;s secular identity. &ldquo;Article 25 lays down that all persons are equally entitled to have the freedom of conscience and shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, which are subject to public order, morality and health,&rdquo; the Court said.
In its order dated October 17, the apex court quashed five FIRs related to alleged illegal religious conversions, including the one against Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal, Vice-Chancellor of Sam Higginbottom University. However, the Court allowed one case to proceed under other IPC sections, such as 307 (attempt to murder), 386 (extortion), and 504 (intentional insult), stating that these charges required further examination.
The Bench also criticized the quality of evidence in some cases, noting that witness affidavits appeared to be &ldquo;cyclostyled,&rdquo; or copied from a common template, merely changing names and details. &ldquo;Criminal law cannot be allowed to become a tool of harassment. Prosecution cannot proceed on the basis of incredulous material,&rdquo; the Court cautioned.
While the Supreme Court refrained from ruling on the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh conversion law in this case, its observations signal strong judicial discomfort with laws that may impinge on individual freedoms and privacy. The broader issue of the anti-conversion laws&nbsp;including those enacted in states like Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh,&nbsp;remains pending before the top court and is expected to undergo detailed constitutional scrutiny in the coming months.

SC Flags Concerns Over UP Anti-Conversion Law

Supreme Court questions UP’s 2021 anti-conversion law, says procedure curbs freedom

SC Flags Concerns Over UP Anti-Conversion Law

Supreme Court questions UP’s 2021 anti-conversion law, says procedure curbs freedom

October 24, 2025 | 13:52 IST