In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed the constitutional right to freely profess and propagate religion, holding that distributing religious pamphlets near a temple does not constitute a criminal offence unless accompanied by an actual or attempted conversion involving unlawful means.
Background of the Case
In May 2025, three Muslim men in Jamkhandi, Karnataka, were accused of distributing Islamic pamphlets and promoting religious teachings near the Ramatheerth Temple. The FIR filed alleged derogatory comments about Hinduism, threats to objectors, and promises of material benefits for conversion. Authorities charged them under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for inciting enmity and intimidation, as well as Section 5 of the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022.
What Did the High Court Say?
Justice Venkatesh Naik T, delivering the order on July 17, 2025, highlighted several fundamental legal points and noted that “even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted at its face value, they fail to satisfy the essential elements of an offence under Section 3 of the Act,” and thus quashed the FIR in its entirety.
Understanding the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022
- Section 3 prohibits conversion “by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by promise of marriage,” and also penalizes abetting or conspiring such conversions.
- Section 4 restricts who can file a complaint: only the converted person, or their close relatives or associates, are competent to lodge complaints about forced or unlawful conversions.
- Section 5 prescribes punishment for violations, which can include imprisonment and substantial fines, especially for offences involving minors, women, or members of Scheduled Castes/Tribes
Court’s Rationale: Procedural & Substantive Violations
The High Court, however, identified two key legal infirmities in the FIR:
1. Violation of Procedural Norms under Section 4 of the Anti-Conversion Law
Section 4 of the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022 lays down a strict procedural requirement regarding who can initiate a complaint. It restricts locus standi (legal standing) to:
- The person who has been allegedly converted,
- Their parents or siblings,
- Or someone legally authorized on their behalf.
In this case, the complainant was a third party with no direct connection to any alleged victim. As per the court, this rendered the FIR procedurally invalid and legally untenable.
2. Absence of Elements Under Section 3: No Attempted Conversion
Section 3 of the Act criminalizes conversions through:
- Force
- Fraud
- Allurement
- Coercion
Importantly, the court observed:
“Even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted at its face value, they fail to satisfy the essential elements of an offence under Section 3 of the Act.”
There was no material evidence suggesting that anyone had been converted or that a serious attempt was made to do so.
Understanding the BNS Provisions Cited
The FIR had invoked various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS):
- Section 153A (BNS): Penalizes promotion of enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, etc.
- Section 505(2) (BNS): Criminalizes statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will.
- Section 506 (BNS): Punishment for criminal intimidation.
But the High Court found no prima facie evidence that the accused were inciting communal hatred or intimidating anyone. The mere act of distributing pamphlets—even near a temple—was held to be non-criminal in nature in the absence of coercive or inflammatory intent.
Court’s Analysis
- No Standing for the Complainant: The complainant, being a local barber and not related to any alleged converted person, was deemed legally incompetent to file the FIR under Section 4.
- No Offence Without Conversion Attempt: Merely distributing pamphlets or religious literature does not, by itself, meet the test set by Section 3 — unless there is evidence of force, fraud, undue influence, or “allurement.”
- No Evidence on Record: There was no material suggesting any person had actually been converted or that a genuine attempt at conversion had been made.
- Constitutional Rights Concerned: The right to freedom of religion is protected under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. This includes the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate one’s faith, subject only to public order, morality, and health. The right to propagate does not amount to the right to convert someone by unlawful means.
Legal Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
- Article 25 – 28 of the Constitution guarantee secularism and religious liberty, protecting both individual and group rights to freely believe, practise, and share religious views.
- The Supreme Court, in earlier cases, has clarified that the right to propagate religion does not extend to converting others through force or fraud, but peaceful preaching is constitutionally protected.
