Liberty to Choose a Faith Lies in the Innermost Domain of Human Conscience: Supreme Court Quashes Multiple FIRs Under UP Conversion Law

"Criminal law cannot be weaponized to intrude into personal autonomy under the guise of protecting religious freedom," ruled the Supreme Court on 17 October 2025, in a landmark judgment that reasserts the primacy of personal liberty, procedural rigour, and constitutional fidelity in criminal investigations under special statutes.

Delivering its decision in a batch of writ petitions filed under Article 32, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra struck down a series of FIRs registered under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, holding them to be a glaring example of the abuse of criminal process by individuals lacking statutory standing, and an unjustified infringement upon the freedom of belief and conscience guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Court ruled that the FIRs, many of which were filed by strangers unrelated to the alleged victims, were non-est in law and "liable to be quashed at the very threshold for being instituted by incompetent persons under the express terms of Section 4 of the statute as it stood prior to its 2024 amendment."

"Once the Complainant Proceeds with Ulterior Motive, the Court Must Read Between the Lines": FIRs Quashed as Abuse of Process

The origin of the case lies in multiple FIRs registered across Uttar Pradesh alleging unlawful religious conversions by various individuals and organizations. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 32, challenging these FIRs on the grounds that they were instituted maliciously, often by unconnected third parties, and in many cases, even after charge sheets had been filed.

The State defended the FIRs by arguing that procedural lapses, if any, could be addressed during trial, and that there was no bar on third parties supplying information to the police.

However, the Supreme Court held that Section 4 of the 2021 Act, prior to its amendment in 2024, specifically empowered only the aggrieved person or their close relatives by blood, marriage or adoption to initiate criminal proceedings. The Court observed that:

“To permit criminal proceedings at the instance of strangers or unrelated third parties would amount to an impermissible intrusion into this protected sphere of individual freedom... The statutory prescription is clear and must be honoured.”

In a strong indictment of the abuse of criminal procedure, the Bench stated that:

“Once the complainant decides to proceed with an ulterior motive... it is not enough to merely examine the FIR; the Court must read between the lines.”

"Courts Must Nip the Mischief in the Bud Even at the Nascent Stage": Power to Quash FIRs Not Lost Post-Charge Sheet

One of the central issues before the Court was whether FIRs can be quashed after the filing of a charge sheet and taking of cognizance. Citing the decisions in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat and Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State, the Court held that:

“It would be a travesty to hold that proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has advanced and the allegations have materialised into a charge-sheet.”

In its considered view, the power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), as well as that of the Supreme Court under Article 32, extends even to post-charge-sheet stages. The Court clarified that the existence of a charge sheet is not a bar to quash proceedings where a fundamental statutory defect is demonstrated.

"Multiple FIRs for the Same Allegation Is a Clear Abuse": Apex Court Enforces Bar Against Repetitive Complaints

The Court took serious note of the fact that multiple FIRs were filed regarding the same set of alleged conversions, often narrating identical facts. Reiterating the rule laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., the Court observed:

“The registration of multiple FIRs in this case, based on the same facts, undermines the fairness of the investigative process and exposes the accused to unwarranted harassment.”

The Bench categorically stated that such repetitive filings were impermissible in law, and that the doctrine of sameness must be applied to prevent multiplicity of prosecutions.

"Article 32 Is Not Barred When Fundamental Rights Are at Stake": Supreme Court Defends Its Jurisdiction to Quash FIRs

Responding to the contention that petitioners should have approached the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC, the Court invoked its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 32, affirming that it can quash FIRs directly in appropriate cases.

The judgment underscored that:

“There is no bar for this Court... to exercise jurisdiction under Article 32 for the purpose of quashing of criminal proceedings,” especially when fundamental rights are being directly threatened.

This pronouncement assumes importance in cases involving state action allegedly motivated by religious or political bias, where the court may intervene to prevent misuse of the criminal justice system.

"Faith Is a Matter of Choice; Not a Crime to Be Investigated": Court Affirms Right to Religious Autonomy

In perhaps the most emphatic part of its ruling, the Supreme Court reasserted the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate one’s religion as a core constitutional value under Article 25, and condemned the tendency of using criminal law to police personal belief.

The Court eloquently stated:

“The liberty to renounce or embrace a faith of one’s choice lies in the innermost domain of human conscience and decisional autonomy. Criminal law cannot intrude into this space except in strict compliance with the statutory framework.”

It reminded the State that even where a statute like the UP Conversion Act imposes conditions, such conditions must be applied in harmony with constitutional guarantees and not used to chill individual freedom or target vulnerable groups.

"A Statutory Safeguard Is Not a Procedural Nicety": Supreme Court Reinforces Legislative Intent of Section 4

Highlighting the importance of strict interpretation of special statutes, the Court held that Section 4 of the UP Conversion Act, in its unamended form, was not a mere formality but a substantive safeguard to prevent frivolous and politically motivated complaints.

The Bench reasoned:

“The moment the legislature restricts the class of persons who can set the criminal law in motion, that mandate must be scrupulously followed. A deviation nullifies the very object of the provision.”

This finding led to the outright quashing of all FIRs filed by persons who lacked standing under the unamended Section 4.

Procedural Integrity and Constitutional Morality Must Guide Criminal Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment reaffirms the centrality of individual liberty, procedural fidelity, and constitutional values in the application of criminal law, particularly in socially sensitive areas like religious belief and conversion. By declaring the FIRs void for being initiated by unauthorized complainants, and for amounting to abuse of process, the Court has sent a strong signal against the politicization of the criminal justice system.

The ruling also clarifies the enduring jurisdiction of courts — including the Supreme Court — to intervene even at the charge-sheet stage, when there is an inherent statutory illegality that compromises fundamental rights.

In an era marked by increasing friction between law enforcement and personal freedoms, this judgment stands as a resounding affirmation that the Constitution is not a paper shield, but a living promise of dignity, choice, and justice.

Date of Decision: 17 October 2025