CAUSETITLE:
Dr. R.B. Lal And 7 Others V State Of U.P. And 3 Others
DATE OF ORDER:
02-06-2023
JUDGE(S):
Anjani Kumar Mishra,Gajendra Kumar.
SUBJECT
Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal, the vice chancellor of Allahabad's Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology, and Sciences (SHUATS), and seven other people were accused of offering allurement to a man to convert to Christianity in an FIR, but the Allahabad High Court refused to grant them any relief.
BRIEF FACTS
- The brief overview In essence, the Court was dealing with a Criminal Writ case brought by eight petitioners seeking protection from arrest, the cancellation of the police report, and a determination that Sections 3, 5, and 12 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 violate the Indian Constitution.
- It was further argued that although the primary charge against the petitioners is a violation of the 2021 Act's provisions, no crime has been committed because the mandatory legal requirements in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act were not followed, and as a result, no religious conversion occurred.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
- Importantly, the Senior Counsel representing the petitioners stressed that since the petition challenges the validity of Sections 3, 5, and 12 of the 2021 Act, which are ex facie unconstitutional or manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional, an interim order can be granted in favour of the petitioner. Senior Counsel did this by citing the Supreme Court's judgments in the cases of Health For Millions Trust v. Union of India (2013) and Bhavesh D. Parish & Others v. Union
ANALYSIS OF COURT
- According to the High Court, "after reviewing the FIR, the court discovered therein direct charges of allurement having been made by the petitioners to the first informant, and, consequently, the allegation, prima facie, constitute an offence under Section 3 of the Act. As a result, the contested first information report cannot be overturned until Section 3 is declared unconstitutional, which is the main relief requested in the writ suit.
- The provisions of Sections 3 and 5 do not, at first glance, appear to be obviously or ex facie unconstitutional, hence the bench did not find any reason to grant the petitioners any temporary orders.The High Court denied the application in light of the aforementioned.
