Case:- RAJENDRA BIHARI LAL AND ANR. vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.| W.P.(Crl.) No. 123/2023 and connected cases.
Citation:- 2025 INSC 1249
Date:- 17.10.2025
Hon’ble Supreme Court Bench:- Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice Manoj Misra
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed multiple FIRs registered in Uttar Pradesh against Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal, Vice-Chancellor of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS), and several other university officials, holding that the proceedings were based on “completely incredulous material” and amounted to an abuse of criminal process. The Hon’ble Court delivered the ruling in a batch of appeals arising from criminal proceedings lodged in various police stations of Uttar Pradesh under the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, along with IPC offences.
- The Hon’ble Court noted that one FIR was legally barred as it was not lodged by a victim. As per the UP Act, as it stood then, only victims(or their relatives) could have lodged an FIR. Further, the other FIRs were found to be repetitions of the allegations. The witness statements were found to be mechanically reproduced (“cyclostyled”), with even mistakes in the names of the deponents getting repeated across statements. Also, the witness statements only showed instances of religious gatherings and Bible preaching, with no allegation of unlawful conversion. The Court said that neither the UP Act nor the IPC made religious gatherings or charity work an offence.
- The Hon’ble Court rejected the argument of Attorney General for India R Venkataramani that the general law under CrPC should prevail over the UP Act so as to allow FIRs by third parties. The Hon’ble Court held that the special law will prevail and further observed that the bar against third party complaints was a legislative safeguard to weed out vexatious complaints by busybodies.
- The Hon’ble Court also took note of the materials collected by the investigating agency and found them to be woefully inadequate. It noted that the witness statements were mechanically reproduced, and the errors in one statement were duplicated in others as well. Even errors in names of the witnesses were mechanically duplicated.
- The Hon’ble Court raised serious doubts over the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, calling its requirements “onerous” and intrusive. The Hon’ble Court stressed that every individual has the liberty of thought, belief, faith, and worship, which reflects India’s secular ethos.
- The Hon’ble Court questioned the publication of personal details of converted persons, saying it might violate the right to privacy as decided in KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India. The Hon’ble Court observed that mandatory declarations and police inquiries before and after conversion show excessive State interference in personal matters. The Hon’ble Court said Article 25 guarantees not just belief but also the right to express and propagate religion which is a core part of India’s secular framework.
- The Hon’ble Court reminded that secularism is an intrinsic part of the Constitution’s basic structure, as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala. The constitutional validity of the UP Conversion Act is still pending before the Supreme Court in petitions by Citizens for Justice and Peace and Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind.
- The Hon’ble Court also noted that the Gujarat High Court had stayed similar provisions in the state’s 2021 ‘love jihad’ law for violating personal liberty and choice.
