Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 15 docs - [View All]
Article 25(1) in The Constitution Of India 1949
The Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000
Section 5 in The Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000
Section 4 in The Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000
Section 3 in The Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000
Citedby 14 docs - [View All]
Kartar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1994
Satya Ranjan Majhi And Anr vs State Of Orissa And Ors on 25 August, 2003
Lalitha Vasudevan vs Guruvayoor Devaswom on 31 March, 2010
235Th Report On Conversion/Reconversion To Another Religion - Mode ...
G. Ramanikumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 March, 2007

User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
Rev. Stainislaus vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 17 January, 1977
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 908, 1977 SCR (2) 611
Author: A Ray
Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj), Beg, M. Hameedullah, Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh, Shingal, P.N., Singh, Jaswant
           PETITIONER:
REV. STAINISLAUS

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/01/1977

BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BENCH:
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
SHINGAL, P.N.
SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:
 1977 AIR  908		  1977 SCR  (2) 611
 1977 SCC  (1) 677


ACT:
	    Constitution  of India--Article 25(1)--Freedom of  reli-
	gion--Right	to    profess--Practice	   and	   propogate
	religion--Whether  forcible and fraudulent   conversion	 in-
	cluded--Public	order--Meaning of--Seventh Schedule List  II
	Entry	1--Madhya  Pradesh  Dharma   Swatantraya   Adhinivam
	1968--Orissa  Freedom of Religion  Act	1967--Constitutional
	validity of.



HEADNOTE:
	    The	 constitutional	 validity  of  the  Madhya   Pradesh
	Dharma	Swatantraya  Adhiniyam, 1968, was challenged in	 the
	High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the constitutional validity
	of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act,	1967  was challenged
	in the High Court of Orissa.  The two Acts prohibit forcible
	conversion  and	 make the offence  punishable.	 The  Madhya
	Pradesh	 High	Court upheld the validity of the  Act.	 The
	Orissa	High Court held that Art. 25(2) of the	Constitution
	guarantees propogation of religion and conversion is a	part
	Christian religion; that the State Legislature has no  power
	to   enact  the impugned legislation which in pith and	sub-
	stance	is a law relating to religion; and that entry 97  of
	List I would apply.
	Upholding the validity of both the Acts,
	    HELD: (1) Article 25 guarantees to all persons right  to
	freedom	 and  conscience and the right	freely	to  profess,
	practice  and  propogate religion subject to  public  order,
	morality and health.  The word 'propogate' has been used  in
	the Article as meaning to transmit or spread from person  to
	person	or from place to place.	 The Article does not  grant
	right to convert other	person	to one's own religion but to
	transmit  or spread one's religion by an exposition  of	 its
	tenets. The freedom of religion enshrined in Art. 25 is	 not
	guaranteed  in respect of one religion only but	 covers	 all
	religions alike which can  be  properly enjoyed by a  person
	if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate with	 the
	like freedom of persons following other religion.  What	  is
	freedom	 for one is freedom for the other in  equal  measure
	and there can, therefore, be no such thing as a	 fundamental
	right to convert any  person  to  one's	 own religion.	[616
	B-F, 617 A-B]
	    (2) The Madhya Pradesh Act prohibits conversion from one
	religion  to another by use of force, allurement or  fraudu-
	lent  means and matters incidental thereto.  Similarly,	 the
	Orissa	Act prohibits conversion by the use of force  or  by
	inducement  or by any fraudulent means.	 Both the  statutes,
	therefore,  clearly  provide for the maintenance  of  public
	order because if forcible conversion had not been prohibited
	that  would  have created public disorder  in	the  States.
	The  expression	 "public  order"  has  a  wide	connotation.
	[617 C-E]
	    Ratilal  Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay &	Ors.
	[1954]	 S.C.R. 2055; Ramesh Thappar v. The State of  Madras
	[1950]	S.C.R.	594; Ramjilal Modi v. State of	U.P.  [1957]
	S.C.R. 860 and Arun Ghosh v. State  of	West Bengal [1966] 1
	S.C.R. 709, followed.
	    (3)	 If an attempt is made to raise	 communal  passions,
	e.g. on the  ground that someone has been forcibly converted
	to another religion it would  in  all probability give	rise
	to an apprehension of a breach of the public order affecting
	the  community	at large  The impugned Acts  therefore	fall
	within	the  purview of Entry 1 of List II  of	the  Seventh
	Schedule as they are meant to avoid
	5--112SCI/77
	612
	disturbance  to the public order by  prohibiting  conversion
	from  one religion to another in a manner  reprehensible  to
	the  conscience	 of  the  community.  The two  Acts  do	 not
	provide for the regulation of religion and do not fall under
	Entry 97 of List I.  [618 A-C]



JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1489. & 1511 of 1974.

(Appeals by certificate./Special Leave from the Judg- ment and Order dated 23-4-1974 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 136/73).

Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 1974.

(From the Judgment and Order dated 23-4-1974 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No. 159/71) and Civil Appeal NOs. 344-346 of 1976.

(Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and. Order dated 24-10-1972 of the Orissa High Court in C.J.C. 185, 186 and 217 of 1969).

Frank Anthony, in CA 1489, CrI. A. 255/74 and CA 346/76 for the appellant in CAs 1489 and 1511/74 and Crl. A.. No. 255/74 and RR. 1 and 2 in CAs 346/76.

Soli J. Sorabiee in CA 1511, Crl. A. 255/74 1. B. Dadac- hanji, K. J. John O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain for the appellant in CAs 1489 and 1511/74 and Crl. A. No. 255/74 and RR. 1 and 2 in CAs 346/76.

Gobind Das (In CAs 344-346/76) B. Parthasarthi, for the appellants in CAs 344-346/76.

Soli J. Sorabjee, B.P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi, for R. 3 in CA 346/76.

Brijbans Kishore, B.R. Sabharwal, for RR. in CA 345/76. Gobind Das,Raj Kumar Mehta,for the Intervener (State of Orissa) in C.A. 1489/74.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. These appeals were heard together because they raise common questions of law relating to the interpre- tation of the Constitution.

Civil Appeals No. 1489 and 1511 of 1974 and Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 1974 are directed against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 23 April, 1974. We shall refer to these as the Madhya Pradesh cases. Civil Appeals No. 344-346 of 1976 relate to a judgment. of the orissa High Court dated 24 October, 1972. We shall refer to these appeals as the Orissa cases.

613

The controversy in the Madhya Pradesh cases relates to the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the Madhya Pradesh Act. The controversy in the Orissa cases arises out of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 hereinafter referred to as the Orissa Act.

The provisions of the 'two Acts in so far as they relate to. prohibition of forcible conversion and punishment there- for, are similar and the questions which have been raised before us are common to both of them. It will, therefore, be enough, for the purpose of appreciating the controversy, to make a somewhat detailed mention of the facts of the Madhya Pradesh case.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Baloda-Bazar sanctioned the prosecution of Rev. Stainislaus for the commission of offences under sections 3, 4 and 5(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Act. When the case came up before Magistrate, First- Class, Baloda-Bazar, the appellant Rev. Stainislaus raised a preliminary objection that the State Legislature did not have the necessary legislative competence and the Madhya Pradesh Act was ultra vires the Constitution as it did not fall within the purview of Entry I of List II and Entry I of List III of the Seventh Schedule. The appellant's conten- tion was that it was covered by Entry 97 of List I so that Parliament alone had the power to make the law and not the State Legislature. An objection was also raised that the provisions of sections 3, 4 and 5(2) of the Act contra- vened Article 25 of the Constitution and were void. The Magistrate took the view that there was no force in the. objection and did not refer the case to the High Court under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The appellant applied to the Additional Sessions Judge for a revision of the Magistrate's order refusing to make a reference to the High Court. The Additional Sessions Judge also took the view that no question of constitutional impor- tance arose in the case and he did not think it necessary to make a reference to the High Court.

The appellant thereupon applied to the High Court for revision under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he also filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court heard both the revision and the writ petition together. The appellant raised the following three questions in the High Court :--

(i) that sections 3, 4, 5(2) and 6 of the M.P. Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 are viola- tive of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 25 ( 1 ) of the Consti- tution of India;
(ii) that in exercise of powers conferred by Entry No.. 1 of List II, read with Entry No. 1 of List III of the Seventh Schedule the Madhya Pradesh Legislature in the name of public order could not have enacted 614 the said legislation. But the matter would fail within the scope of Entry No. 97 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, which confers residuary powers on Parliament to legislate in respect of any matters not covered by List I, List I1 or List III. Therefore, it is contended that Parliament alone had the power to legislate on this subject and the legisla- tion enacted by the State Legislature is ultra vires the powers of the State legislature;
(iii) that section 5(1) and section 5(2) of the M.P. Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 amount to testimonial compulsion and, therefore, the said provisions are violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

The High Court examined the controversy with reference to the relevant provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Act and the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Rules, 1969 and held as follows :--

"What is penalised is conversion by force, fraud or by allurement. The other element is that. every person has a right to profess his own religion and to act according to it. Any interference with that right of the other person by resorting to conversion by force, fraud or allurement cannot, in our opinion, be said to contravene Article 25(1) of the Con- stitution of India, as the Article g uarantees religious freedom subject to public health. As such, we do not find that the provisions of sections 3, 4 and 5 of the M.P. Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 are violative of Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, it guarantees that religious freedom to one and all includ- ing those who might be amenable to conversion by force, fraud or allurement. As such, the Act, in our opinion, guarantees equality of religious freedom to all, much less can it be said to encroach upon the religious freedom of any particular individual."
The High Court therefore held that there was no justi-

fication for the argument that sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Act were violative of Article 25(1) of the Constitution. The High Court in fact went on to hold that those sections "establish the equality of religious freedom for all citizens by prohibiting conversion by objec- tionable activities such, as conversion by force, fraud and by allurement".

As regards the question of legislative competence, the High Court took note of some judgments of this Court and held that as "the phrase 'public order' conveys a wider connotation as laid down by their Lordships! of the Supreme Court in the different cases. We are of the opinion that the subject matter of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 fails within the scope of Entry No. I of List II of the Seventh Schedule relating to the State List regarding public order".

615

On the remaining point relating to testimonial compul- sion with reference to Article 20(3)of the Constitution, the High Court held that section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Act read with Form A, prescribed by the Rules, merely made provision for the giving of intimation to the District Magistrate about conversion and did not require its maker to make a confession of any offence as to whether the conver- sion had been made on account of fraud, force or allurement, 'which had been penalised by the Act. The High Court thus held that mere giving of such information was not violative of Article 30(1) of 'the Constitution. But the question of testimonial compulsion within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution has not been raised for our considera- tion.

The Orissa cases arose out of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the vires of the Orissa Act. The High ,Court stated its conclusions in those cases as follows:--

(1) Article 25(1) guarantees propagation of religion and conversion is a part of the Christian religion.
(2) Prohibition of conversion by 'force' or by 'fraud' as defined by the Act would be covered by the limitation subject to which the right is guaranteed under Article 25 (1). (3) The definition of the term 'inducement' is vague and many proselytizing activities may be covered by the definition and the restriction in Article 25 (1) cannot be said to cover the wide definition.' (4) The State LegisLature has no power to enact the impugned legislation which in pith and substance is a law relating to religion. Entry No. 1 of either List II or List III does not authorise the impugned legislation. (5) Entry 97 of List I applies.

The High Court has therefore declared the Orissa Act to be ultra vires the Constitution and directed the issue of mandamus to the State Government not to give effect to it. The criminal cases which were pending have been quashed. The common questions which, have been raised for our consideration are (1) whether the two Acts were violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution, and (2) whether the State Legislatures were competent to enact them ?

Article 25(1) of the Constitution reads as follows:
"25(1) Subject to public order,' morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion."
616
Counsel for the appellant has argued that the right to 'propagate' one's religion means the right to convert a person to one's own religion. On that basis, counsel has argued further that the right to convert a person to one's own religion is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 25 (1) of the Constitu- tion.
The expression 'propagate' has a number of meanings, including "to multiply specimens of (a plant, animal, disease etc.) by any process of natural reproduction from the parent stock", but that cannot, for obvious reasons, be the meaning for purposes of Arti- cle 25 (1) of the Constitution. The Article guarantees a right to freedom of religion, and the expression 'propagate' cannot there- fore be said to have been used in a biologi- cal sense.
The expression 'propagate' has been de- fined in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary to mean "to spread from person to person, or from place to place, to disseminate, diffuse (a statement, belief, practice, etc.)" According to the Century Dictionary (which is an Encylopaedic Lexicon of the English Language) Vol. VI, 'propagate' means as follows :--
"To transmit or spread from person to person or from place to place; carry forward or onward; diffuse; extend; as propagate a report; to propagate the Christian religion".

We have no doubt that it is in this sense. that the word 'propagate' has been used in Article 25 (1), for what the Article grants is not the right to convert another person to one's own religion, but 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 follow- ers of one particular religion, and that, in turn, postu- lates 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 coun- try alike.

The meaning of guarantee under Article 25 of the Con- stitution came up for consideration in this Court in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay & Ors. (1) and it was held as follows :--

"Thus, subject to the restrictions which this Article imposes, every person has a fundamental right under our Constitution not merely to entertain such, religious belief as may be approved of by his judgment or con- science but to exhibit his belief and ideas in such overt acts as are enjoined or sanctioned by his religion and further to propagate his religious views for the edification of others."

(1) [1954]S.C.R. 1055.

617

This Court has given the correct meaning of the Article, and we find no justification for the view that it grants. a fundamental right to convert persons to one's own reli- gion. It has to be appreciated that the freedom of religion enshrined in the Article is not guaranteed in respect of one religion only, but covers all religions alike, and it can be properly enjoyed by a person if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate with the like freedom of persons follow- ing the other religions. What is freedom for one, is free- dom for the other, in equal measure, and there can there- fore be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one's own religion.

It was next been argued by counsel that the Legislatures of Madhya Pradesh, and Orissa States did not have legisla- tive competence to pass the Madhya Pradesh Act and the Orissa Act respectively, because their laws regulate 'rel- igion' and fall under the Residuary Entry 97 in List 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. It is not in controversy that the Madhya Pradesh Act provides for the prohibition of conversion from one religion to. another by use of force or allurement, or by fraudulent means, and matters incidental thereto. The expressions "allurement" and 'fraud' have been defined by the. Act. Section 3 of the Act prohibits conversion by use of force or by allurement or by fraudulent means and section 4 pena- lises such forcible conversion. Similarly, section 3 of the Orissa Act prohibits forcible conversion by the use of force or by inducement or by any. fraudulent means, and section 4 penalises such forcible conversion. The Acts therefore dearly provide for the maintenance of public order for, if forcible conversion had not been prohibited, that would have created public disorder in the States. The expression "Public order" is of wide conno- tation. It must have the connotation which it is meant to provide as the very first Entry in List II. It has been held by this Court in Ramesh Thapper v. The State of Madras(1) that "public order" is an expression of wide connotation and signifies state of tranquility which pre- vails among the members of a political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the Government which they have established".

Reference may also be made to the decision in Ramjilal Modi v. State of U.P. (2) where this Court has held that the right of freedom religion guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is expressly made subject to public order, morality and health, and that "it cannot be predicat- ed that freedom of religion can have no bearing whatever on the maintenance of public order or that a law creating an offence relating to religion cannot under any circumstances be said to have been enacted in the interests of public order". It has been held that these two Articles in terms contemplate that restrictions may be imposed on the rights guaranteed by them in the interests of public order. Refer- ence may as well be made to the decision in Arun Ghosh v. State of WeSt Bengal(a) where it has been held that if a thing disturbs the current of the life of the community, (1) (1950) S.C.R. 594.

(2) (1957) S.C.R. 860 (3) (1966) 1 S.C.R. 709 618 and does not merely affect an individual, it would amount to disturbance of the public order. Thus if an attempt is made to raise communal passions, e.g. on the ground that some one has been "forcibly" converted to anoth- er religion, it would, in all probability, give rise to an apprehension of a breach of the public order, affecting the community at large. The impugned Acts therefore fall within: the purview of Entry I of List II of the Seventh Schedule as they are meant to avoid disturbances to the public order by prohibiting conversion from one religion to another in a manner reprehensible to the conscience of the community. The two Acts do not provide for the regulation of religion and! we do not find any justification for the argument that they fall under Entry 97 of List I of the Seventh Schedule.

In the result Civil Appeals No. 1489 and 1511 of 1974 and Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 1974 fall and are dismissed while Civil Appeals No. 344-346 of 1976 are allowed and the impugned judgment of the Orissa High Court dated 24 October, 1972 is set aside. The parties shall pay and bear their own costs, in Madhya Pradesh appeals. The State shall pay the respondent costs in the Orissa appeal according to previous direction.

P.H.P.

C.As. Nos. 1489 & 1511 of 1974 and Cr. A. No. 255 of 1974 dismissed.

C.As. Nos. 344--346 of 1976 allowed.

619