REV. STAINISLAUS VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977)SCR (2) 611 held that there is no Fundamental Right under Article 25 of the Constitution to covert a person to one’s own religion.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Several appeals were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the vires of Madhya Pradesh Swantantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 and Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967. These acts contained provisions for prohibition of forcible conversion of a person to one’s own religion.
The Sub-divisional Magistrate of Baloda Bazaar sanctioned prosecution of Rev. Stainislaus for commission of offence under Section 3, 4 and 5 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Act. Preliminary objections were taken by Rev. Stainilaus that State was not competent to pass the act and it was also contended that act was also violative of Article 25 of the Constitution. SDM as well as Sessions Court did not entertain the preliminary objection. The revision was filed before the High Court. The High Court held that these provisions did not violate Article 25 of the Constitution. It was also held that State Legislature was competent to pass this act under entry I of List II of Seventh Schedule.
On the other hand, Orissa High Court declared provisions of Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 ultra virus as it found that the State Legislature has no power to enact the impugned legislation which in pith and substance is a law relating to religion.
FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
It was contended by the Appellant that right to “propagate” religion under Article 25 includes right to “convert” a person to one’s own religion.
The Supreme Court observed that the word “propagate” has been used in Article 25 (1) to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets. It has to be remembered that Article 25 (1) guarantees “freedom of conscience” to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular religion, and that, postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one’s own religion because if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion, as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread the tenets of his religion, that would impinge on the “freedom of conscience” guaranteed to all the citizens of the country alike. What is freedom for one, is freedom for the other, in equal measure and there can be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own religion.
The Supreme Court observed that Article 25 and Article 26 have been made subject to public order, morality and health. It cannot predicated that freedom of religion can have no impact on public order. If communal passions are raised on the ground of forcible conversions, it will give rise to an apprehension of breach of public order affecting the community at large. Therefore, the impugned acts come within purview of Entry I of List II of Seventh Schedule. The aforesaid acts do not provide for regulation of religion but are related to maintenance of public order.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against judgment of Orissa High Court and set aside the same. On the other hand the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court.
______________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.