Rev Stainislaus v State of Madhya Pradesh

Facts

Two State anti-conversion statutes—the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act—prohibited religious conversion by force, allurement or fraudulent means. Rev Stainislaus, a Christian priest, challenged the Madhya Pradesh law on the grounds that the State legislature lacked competence and that the law infringed Article 25. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had upheld the Act while the Orissa High Court had struck down the Orissa Act, and the conflicting matters came before a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether the fundamental right to 'propagate' religion under Article 25(1) includes a right to convert another person to one's own faith.
• Whether State legislatures are competent to enact laws prohibiting conversion by force, fraud or allurement.
• Whether such anti-conversion statutes violate Article 25(1).

Arguments

The petitioner argued that the right to propagate religion in Article 25(1) includes the right to convert, and that the State lacked legislative competence to regulate religion. The State argued that 'propagate' means only to transmit or spread the tenets of one's religion for the edification of others, not to convert, and that the laws were within its competence as measures to maintain public order.

Held

The Court held that Article 25(1) confers a right to transmit or spread the tenets of one's religion but not a right to convert another person, because Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience to every citizen alike; purposely converting another would impinge on that other person's freedom of conscience. Drawing on Ratilal Panachand, the Court said propagation is for the 'edification' of others. It upheld the legislative competence of the States on the footing that the Acts were directed at maintaining public order, and accordingly upheld both the Madhya Pradesh and Orissa statutes prohibiting conversion by force, fraud or allurement.

Ratio decidendi

The freedom to 'propagate' religion under Article 25(1) is the freedom to transmit and spread one's religious tenets, not a fundamental right to convert another person; legislation prohibiting conversion by force, fraud or allurement is a valid public-order measure within State competence.

Significance

The leading—and still authoritative—decision on the right to propagate and the validity of anti-conversion laws, having sustained the wave of State 'Freedom of Religion' statutes. Its narrow reading of 'propagate' has been sharply criticised by scholars such as H.M. Seervai, who called it 'clearly wrong' and argued successful propagation must include conversion as a fulfilment of freedom of conscience. Despite the criticism, it has not been reconsidered by a larger bench and remains the last word on the meaning of the right to propagate.

Related