Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Rev. Stainislaus was prosecuted under the Madhya Pradesh law against conversion by force, allurement or fraud. He argued that the right to "propagate" religion includes a right to convert others. The Supreme Court heard this together with appeals against the Orissa High Court's ruling on a similar Orissa law.

Quick Revision

Parties

Rev. Stainislaus — appellant in the Madhya Pradesh appeals; prosecuted under sections 3, 4 and 5(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Act.

State of Madhya Pradesh — respondent in the Madhya Pradesh appeals; the State whose Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 was challenged.

Appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 344-346 of 1976 — appeals from the Orissa High Court; the judgment lists counsel for them. The judgment does not name them.

Respondents 1 and 2 and respondent 3 in Civil Appeal No. 346 of 1976 — the other side in the Orissa appeals; the judgment names counsel for them but not the persons.

State of Orissa — intervener in Civil Appeal No. 1489 of 1974 (counsel Gobind Das and Raj Kumar Mehta).

Procedural History

The judgment says the appeals were heard together because they raise common questions on the interpretation of the Constitution. The judgment is not divided into numbered paragraphs.

Madhya Pradesh cases

1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Baloda-Bazar sanctioned the prosecution of Rev. Stainislaus under sections 3, 4 and 5(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Act.
2. Before the Magistrate, First Class, Baloda-Bazar, he raised a preliminary objection. He said the State Legislature lacked competence and the Act was ultra vires (beyond power) the Constitution. He said it fell under Entry 97 of List I, not under Entry 1 of List II or Entry 1 of List III. He also said sections 3, 4 and 5(2) contravened Article 25 and were void.
3. The Magistrate found no force in the objection. He did not refer the case to the High Court under section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
4. The appellant applied to the Additional Sessions Judge to revise that refusal. The Additional Sessions Judge held that no question of constitutional importance arose and made no reference.
5. The appellant then applied to the High Court for revision under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also filed a writ (a court's formal order) petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
6. The Madhya Pradesh High Court heard the revision and the writ petition together. It decided them on 23 April 1974. The judgment gives the numbers as Misc. Petition No. 136/73 and Criminal Revision No. 159/71.
7. The High Court upheld the Act. The appeals are Civil Appeals Nos. 1489 and 1511 of 1974 (by certificate or special leave, permission the Supreme Court gives to hear an appeal) and Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 1974.

Orissa cases

1. The Orissa cases arose from petitions under Article 226 challenging the vires (legal power to make) of the Orissa Act. The High Court decided them on 24 October 1972 (C.J.C. 185, 186 and 217 of 1969).
2. The High Court declared the Orissa Act ultra vires the Constitution. It directed a mandamus to the State Government not to give effect to it. It quashed the pending criminal cases.
3. The appeals are Civil Appeals Nos. 344-346 of 1976, by special leave.

Facts

The judgment says it is enough to mention the facts of the Madhya Pradesh case in some detail. The provisions of the two Acts on forcible conversion are similar.

1. The Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 prohibits conversion from one religion to another by force, allurement or fraudulent means, and matters incidental to it.
2. The Act defines allurement and fraud. Section 3 prohibits conversion by force, allurement or fraud. Section 4 penalises such forcible conversion.
3. The Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 is similar. Its section 3 prohibits conversion by force, inducement or fraudulent means. Its section 4 penalises it.
4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Baloda-Bazar sanctioned the prosecution of Rev. Stainislaus under sections 3, 4 and 5(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Act.
5. The appellant raised the objections on legislative competence and Article 25 before the Magistrate. The courts below refused to refer them to the High Court (see Procedural History).
6. In the High Court he raised three points. These are listed under Issues Raised.
7. The Orissa petitions challenged the Orissa Act under Article 226. Criminal cases were pending under that Act.

Issues Raised

The judgment states two common questions for the Supreme Court.

1. Are the Madhya Pradesh Act and the Orissa Act violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution?
2. Were the State Legislatures competent to enact them?

Points raised in the Madhya Pradesh High Court

1. Sections 3, 4, 5(2) and 6 violate the petitioner's rights under Article 25(1).
2. The State Legislature could not enact the law in the name of public order. The matter falls under Entry 97 of List I (residuary power, the power over matters not in any List), so only Parliament can legislate.
3. Sections 5(1) and 5(2) amount to testimonial compulsion (being forced to give evidence against oneself) and violate Article 20(3).

The Supreme Court records that the third point was not raised before it.

Arguments Contended

The judgment records the appellants' arguments only. It does not record any argument of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State of Orissa (intervener) or the other respondents.

For the appellants

• The right to propagate one's religion means the right to convert a person to one's own religion.
• So the right to convert a person to one's own religion is a fundamental right under Article 25(1).
• The Madhya Pradesh and Orissa Legislatures lacked competence to pass their Acts. The Acts regulate religion and fall under Residuary Entry 97 in List I of the Seventh Schedule.

For the respondents

• No arguments are recorded in the judgment.

Court's Reasoning

The judgment is a single unanimous judgment delivered by Ray, C.J. for the Court. It has no numbered paragraphs, so no paragraph numbers are cited. Steps follow the order of the judgment.

Judgment of the Court (Ray, C.J.)

1. Noted: the appeals were heard together because they raise common questions on the interpretation of the Constitution.
2. Noted: the Madhya Pradesh Act and the Orissa Act are similar on prohibiting forcible conversion and punishing it. So the facts of the Madhya Pradesh case are enough to understand the controversy.
3. Noted: the Madhya Pradesh High Court read the Act and the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Rules, 1969. It held that what the Act penalises is conversion by force, fraud or allurement.
4. Noted: the High Court held that every person has a right to profess and act on his own religion. Interfering with that right by conversion through force, fraud or allurement does not contravene Article 25(1), as the Article guarantees religious freedom subject to public health.
5. Noted: the High Court added that the Act guarantees equality of religious freedom to all, including those who might be amenable to conversion by such means. It found no encroachment on the religious freedom of any individual.
6. Noted: the High Court held that sections 3, 4 and 5 establish equality of religious freedom for all citizens. They do so by prohibiting conversion through objectionable activities such as force, fraud and allurement.
7. Noted: on competence, the High Court relied on judgments of this Court. It held that public order has a wide connotation. It held that the Act falls under Entry 1 of List II of the Seventh Schedule.
8. Noted: on testimonial compulsion, the High Court held that section 5 read with Form A only requires intimation of a conversion to the District Magistrate. It did not require a confession of any offence. So it held that giving such information does not violate the Constitution. The judgment names this as Article 30(1), apparently meaning Article 20(3).
9. Noted: the Supreme Court said the question of testimonial compulsion within Article 20(3) has not been raised before it.
10. Noted: the Orissa High Court reached five conclusions:
    • Article 25(1) guarantees propagation of religion, and conversion is part of the Christian religion.
    • Prohibition of conversion by force or fraud, as defined, is covered by the limits on Article 25(1).
    • The definition of inducement is vague and covers many proselytizing activities, so the Article 25(1) restriction cannot cover it.
    • The State Legislature has no power to enact a law which in pith and substance (its true nature) relates to religion. Entry 1 of List II or List III does not authorise it.
    • Entry 97 of List I applies.
    It declared the Orissa Act ultra vires, directed mandamus and quashed pending criminal cases.
11. Noted: Article 25(1) makes freedom of conscience (the right to hold and follow one's own beliefs) and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion available to all persons equally. It is subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of "this Part" of the Constitution.
12. Noted: the appellants' counsel argued that propagate means the right to convert, so conversion is a fundamental right.
13. Noted: propagate has several meanings, including multiplying a plant, animal or disease by natural reproduction. That biological sense cannot be the meaning in Article 25(1), which guarantees freedom of religion.
14. Noted: the Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines propagate as to spread from person to person, or from place to place, to disseminate or diffuse a statement, belief or practice.
15. Noted: the Century Dictionary defines it as to transmit or spread from person to person or from place to place; carry forward or onward; diffuse; extend. Its example is propagating the Christian religion.
16. Held: propagate is used in Article 25(1) in that sense. The Article grants the right to transmit or spread one's religion by exposing its tenets. It does not grant the right to convert another person to one's own religion.
17. Why: Article 25(1) guarantees freedom of conscience to every citizen, not only to followers of one religion. So there is no fundamental right to convert another person.
18. Why: a person may purposely undertake to convert another. That is different from transmitting or spreading the tenets of his religion. It would impinge on the freedom of conscience guaranteed to all citizens alike.
19. Noted: Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay considered the guarantee under Article 25. It held that every person has a fundamental right not only to hold the religious belief he approves, but to show it in acts that his religion enjoins. It also held that he may propagate his views for the moral improvement of others.
20. Held: this Court has given the correct meaning of the Article. The Court found no justification for the view that it grants a fundamental right to convert persons to one's own religion.
21. Held: the freedom of religion in the Article covers all religions alike. A person can enjoy it only if he exercises it in a manner commensurate with the like freedom of persons following other religions.
22. Why: "What is freedom for one, is freedom for the other, in equal measure". So there can be no fundamental right to convert any person to one's own religion.
23. Noted: on legislative competence, counsel argued that the Acts regulate religion and fall under Residuary Entry 97 in List I.
24. Noted: it is not in controversy that the Madhya Pradesh Act prohibits conversion from one religion to another by force, allurement or fraudulent means, and matters incidental to it. The Act defines allurement and fraud.
25. Noted: section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Act prohibits conversion by force, allurement or fraud, and section 4 penalises forcible conversion. Section 3 of the Orissa Act prohibits conversion by force, inducement or fraud, and section 4 penalises it.
26. Held: the Acts clearly provide for the maintenance of public order.
27. Why: if forcible conversion had not been prohibited, that would have created public disorder in the States.
28. Held: public order is an expression of wide connotation. It must carry the meaning it has as the very first Entry in List II.
29. Noted: Ramesh Thapper v. State of Madras held that public order signifies the state of tranquillity among members of a political society, resulting from internal regulations enforced by the Government they have established.
30. Noted: Ramjilal Modi v. State of U.P. held that the freedom of religion in Articles 25 and 26 is expressly subject to public order, morality and health. It held that one cannot say freedom of religion has no bearing on public order. It held that a law creating an offence relating to religion may be enacted in the interests of public order. Restrictions may therefore be imposed on these rights in the interests of public order.
31. Noted: Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal held that a thing can disturb the current of the life of the community. If it does not merely affect an individual, it amounts to a disturbance of public order.
32. Held: suppose an attempt is made to raise communal passions, for example on the ground that a person was forcibly converted to another religion. That would in all probability give rise to an apprehension of a breach of public order affecting the community at large.
33. Held: the Acts fall within Entry 1 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. They aim to avoid disturbances to public order by prohibiting conversion in a manner reprehensible to the conscience of the community.
34. Held: the two Acts do not provide for the regulation of religion. The Court found no justification for the argument that they fall under Entry 97 of List I.

Authorities

• Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay, [1954] S.C.R. 1055 — relied on for the meaning of the guarantee under Article 25, including the right to propagate one's views.
• Ramesh Thapper v. The State of Madras, (1950) S.C.R. 594 — relied on for the wide meaning of public order.
• Ramjilal Modi v. State of U.P., (1957) S.C.R. 860 — relied on to show that Articles 25 and 26 are subject to public order, and a law on religious offences can serve public order.
• Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, (1966) 1 S.C.R. 709 — relied on to show that a disturbance of the community's life, not just an individual's, is a disturbance of public order.
• The Shorter Oxford Dictionary and the Century Dictionary, Vol. VI — consulted for the meaning of propagate.
• Also cited in footnotes: none other than the reports of the four cases above.

Statutory provisions

• Article 25(1): freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
• Article 26: freedom to manage religious affairs; the Court notes it is subject to public order, morality and health, as stated in Ramjilal Modi.
• Articles 226 and 227: powers of the High Court. The appellant filed a writ petition under both; the Orissa petitions were under Article 226.
• Article 20(3): protection against being compelled to be a witness against oneself. The Court notes it was not raised before it.
• Article 30(1): named in the judgment in the High Court's testimonial-compulsion holding.
• Seventh Schedule, Entry 1 of List II (public order); Entry 1 of List III; Entry 97 of List I (residuary power).
• Madhya Pradesh Act: section 3 (prohibits conversion by force, allurement or fraud); section 4 (penalty); section 5(1) and 5(2) (intimation of conversion); section 6.
• Orissa Act: section 3 (prohibits conversion by force, inducement or fraud); section 4 (penalty).
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, section 432 (reference to the High Court) and section 439 (revision).

Judgement

1. Civil Appeals Nos. 1489 and 1511 of 1974 and Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 1974 (Madhya Pradesh) are dismissed.
2. Civil Appeals Nos. 344-346 of 1976 (Orissa) are allowed. The Orissa High Court's judgment of 24 October 1972 is set aside.
3. In the Madhya Pradesh appeals, the parties pay and bear their own costs.
4. In the Orissa appeal, the State pays the respondent's costs according to the previous direction.

Legal Principle / Ratio

Article 25(1) guarantees the right to transmit or spread one's religion by exposing its tenets. It gives no fundamental right to convert another person. Laws prohibiting forcible, allured or fraudulent conversion fall under public order, Entry 1 of List II, and not under Entry 97 of List I.

Key holding: "there can therefore be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one's own religion".

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

• The judgment has no numbered paragraphs, so the steps cannot be tied to paragraph numbers.
• It does not separately discuss the Orissa High Court's view that the definition of inducement is vague.
• It does not say whether the State laws are "reasonable" restrictions on Article 25(1). It rests on the meaning of propagate and on public order.
• It states no arguments for the State respondents or the intervener.
• The testimonial-compulsion point (Article 20(3)) was not argued, so it is left undecided.

Significance

• Commentary: the case fixes the meaning of propagate in Article 25(1).
• It upheld State laws on conversion as public-order laws within State competence.

Exam-Important Points

• Rule: propagate means to transmit or spread one's religion by exposing its tenets. Trap: it does not include a right to convert.
• Rule: forcible conversion laws fall under Entry 1 of List II (public order). Trap: not Entry 97 of List I.
• Rule: the freedom in Article 25 covers all religions alike, so one person's freedom matches the equal freedom of others.
• Trap: Orissa High Court's ruling was set aside. The Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling was upheld.
• Trap: the Article 20(3) point was not before the Court.
• Costs: own costs in the Madhya Pradesh appeals; State pays in the Orissa appeal.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. The judgment has no numbered paragraphs, so none are cited. The citation is printed in the judgment's own header.