Allahabad High Court Says Distributing Bible Not a Crime, Criticises Police Overreach in Conversion FIR

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that distributing the Bible or preaching religious doctrine is not a crime under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. A Division Bench of Justices Abdul Moin and Babita Rani pulled up the Uttar Pradesh Police for registering an FIR without any identifiable victim and for acting “in haste” in a matter where no one claimed to have been converted.

The case arose after the police filed an FIR based on a complaint alleging that the accused was hosting religious gatherings at his residence, displaying content on an LED screen, delivering sermons, and distributing Bible copies. The Bench observed that such activities, without coercion or inducement, cannot attract provisions of the anti-conversion law.

“Merely distributing Bible and preaching Christian doctrine, without any allegation of forcible or fraudulent conversion, does not constitute any offence,” the Court remarked, granting bail to the accused and issuing notice to the complainant.

Court Notes Absence of Victim or Allegation of Actual Conversion

A central reason for the High Court’s intervention was the absence of a complainant who claimed to have been converted or pressured into conversion. The Bench underlined that the FIR failed to identify any individual who was subjected to inducement, threat, or coercion—key elements required to invoke the 2021 Act.

According to the FIR, the only activities observed were:

• Sermons being delivered at the accused’s residence

• An LED screen displaying religious content

• Individuals gathered for prayer

• The accused allegedly distributing Bible copies

The Court noted that these actions fall within the realm of constitutionally protected religious expression unless accompanied by unlawful methods of persuasion. “At the time of the FIR, there was no victim,” the Bench observed, emphasising that the complaint made no claim of conversion or attempt to convert.

This gap, the Court stated, rendered the police action premature and unsupported by the statutory requirements of the anti-conversion law.

“Bending Backward”: High Court Criticises Police Haste and Overreach

In a strongly worded observation, the Bench accused the police of “bending backward” to register the complaint without verifying whether any offence under the 2021 Act had actually occurred.

The Court held that police are required to satisfy themselves that a cognisable offence exists before registering an FIR—particularly under statutes that impose serious criminal consequences. In this case, it found no material suggesting an attempt to unlawfully convert anyone.

The Bench remarked that the FIR appeared to rely solely on the presence of religious activity rather than any evidence of inducement or coercion. By moving quickly to file an FIR, the police “acted in haste,” the Court said, noting that the statutory threshold for prosecution was not met.

The judgment underscores that the mere act of distributing Bible copies or preaching cannot automatically trigger the anti-conversion law, as these constitute lawful religious practices unless accompanied by prohibited methods.

Understanding What the UP Anti-Conversion Law Requires

The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 criminalises conversion through:

• Misrepresentation

• Force

• Undue influence

• Coercion

• Allurement

• Fraud

It also regulates religious conversions by mandating prior declarations and post-conversion verification by district authorities.

The High Court emphasized that none of these statutory elements were present in the case. The FIR lacked:

• A complainant claiming to be a victim of conversion

• Any allegation of inducement or coercion

• Evidence suggesting fraudulent means

Instead, the allegations focused primarily on the accused distributing Bible copies, hosting prayer meetings, and showing religious material. The Court reiterated that such conduct cannot be criminalised unless it crosses the legal boundary into coercive conversion efforts.

Bail Granted After Court Finds No Prima Facie Case

After evaluating the FIR and the submissions, the Bench concluded that the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence were absent. It noted that the accused had not been implicated in any previous case and that the evidence on record consisted solely of religious activities ordinarily permitted under constitutional guarantees.

On this basis, the Court granted bail and directed that the accused be released upon furnishing the required sureties. It also issued notice to the complainant, seeking clarification on the basis of the allegations made.

The decision signals the Court’s concern over the misuse of anti-conversion laws and its willingness to scrutinise FIRs that appear to target lawful religious practice.

Constitutionally Protected Expressions of Faith

The judgment reiterates that India’s constitutional framework protects the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. The Court observed that activities such as prayer meetings, sermons, or distributing Bible copies fall squarely within these protections, as long as they do not involve coercive or fraudulent elements.

The Bench noted that propagation of religion—meaning the sharing of religious ideas—is not prohibited by law. Anti-conversion statutes are designed to prevent forced or fraudulent conversions, not to restrict peaceful religious expression.

By clarifying this distinction, the Court reaffirmed that criminal liability cannot rest solely on the fact that a person shares their faith with others.

FIR Based Solely on “Religious Presence” Cannot Stand, Court Indicates

The Court took particular note of the FIR’s emphasis on religious paraphernalia—an LED screen displaying messages, people gathered for the sermon, and the act of distributing Bible copies.

It held that these observations describe religious activity, not criminal conduct. “Presence of religious activity cannot be equated with conversion,” the Bench observed.

The judgment suggests that FIRs under the 2021 Act must demonstrate:

• A specific instance of targeted conversion

• A complainant alleging harm

• Evidence of inducement or coercion

Absent these elements, police action is likely to be quashed or curtailed by judicial oversight.

Judicial Reminder to Police on Statutory Duties

The case also serves as a reminder of the duty of police officers to conduct preliminary assessment before invoking special penal laws. The Bench stressed that the police must ensure that material exists to indicate an offence under the statute before initiating criminal proceedings.

By criticising the police for “bending backward,” the Court highlighted systemic concerns about over-enforcement or misuse of laws relating to religious conversion.

The judgment may shape how police interpret and apply the 2021 Act in future cases—especially those involving peaceful religious gatherings.

Notice Issued to Complainant for Further Clarification

In addition to granting bail, the Court issued notice to the complainant, seeking clarification regarding the basis of their allegations. This move reflects the Court’s apparent skepticism about the FIR’s factual foundation.

The Bench indicated that further scrutiny may be necessary to assess whether the complaint was grounded in a genuine concern or filed in response to mere religious expression.

This step underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that criminal process is not misused to target minority religious practices.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court’s ruling underscores that distributing Bible copies or preaching Christian doctrine, in the absence of coercion or inducement, is not a criminal act under the Uttar Pradesh anti-conversion law. By criticising the police for registering an FIR without any identifiable victim or allegation of actual conversion, the Court reaffirmed the limits of the 2021 Act and emphasised constitutional protections for religious freedom.

The decision reinforces the principle that lawful religious expression cannot be treated as a criminal offence and that police must exercise caution before invoking stringent statutes designed to address forced conversions.