In an order dated 6 October, Justice M. W. Chandwani held that the allegations against the four defendants, even when interpreted in the most unfavourable light, failed to establish the malicious intent required by law to constitute the alleged offences.
The ruling comes at a significant time for Maharashtra, where local legislation against religious conversions came into force on 28 August, following pressure from Hindu nationalists associated with the BJP, the party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The legislation has raised considerable concern among local Christian communities.
The defendants in the Amravati case were Joseph Khudawant, his son Victor, his daughter-in-law Elvina and social worker Anant Mankar. According to the prosecution, the four had promised a Hindu couple monthly financial support, payment of their children’s school fees and a house in exchange for converting to Christianity.
The four defendants contested the prosecution’s account and denied acting with unlawful intent. In quashing the complaint and charge sheet, the court clarified the distinction between propagating one’s religious beliefs and committing an offence against another religious community.
“The appellants,” the judgement states, “merely promoted their religion, and this does not mean that, in doing so, they have offended the religious feelings of any group.”
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and other constitutional provisions. However, this constitutional protection does not permit the use of force, deception or other unlawful means to secure religious conversions.
The court’s decision does not authorise coercive conversions or establish that every complaint concerning illegal conversions is unfounded. Instead, it underscores that criminal charges must meet the specific legal requirements applicable to the alleged offences and be supported by sufficient evidence.
Another significant aspect of the ruling concerns the timing of the alleged events and the applicability of the law. The disputed incidents are alleged to have occurred in 2025, before Maharashtra’s legislation against illegal religious conversions came into force.
The court therefore examined the legal framework applicable at the time of the alleged conduct, emphasising the principle that a subsequent law cannot be applied retrospectively to criminalise past conduct.
The Amravati case also raises concerns about the potential use of false or exaggerated allegations of forced conversion to intimidate Christians and obstruct legitimate religious activities, including those conducted by small Pentecostal groups.
The ruling reinforces the distinction between unlawful coercion in religious conversions and the constitutionally protected propagation of religious beliefs, while underscoring that criminal proceedings must be grounded in the law applicable at the time of the alleged events and supported by sufficient evidence.
About The Author
Comment List