Gujarat High Court observed that Article 25 of the Constitution protects religious propagation but not conversions brought about through coercive or fraudulent means. (File Photo)Observing that the constitutional right to propagate religion does not extend to conversions brought about through force, fraud, or coercion, the Gujarat High Court has refused to cancel criminal proceedings against an ASHA worker accused of pressuring her colleagues to embrace Christianity through threats.Justice M K Thakker on July 31 dismissed a petition filed by Namrata Macwan seeking to set aside an FIR registered against her under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act and the chargesheet arising from allegations that she repeatedly propagated Christianity among subordinate health workers while allegedly threatening adverse consequences at their workplace.According to the prosecution, Namrata allegedly asked an ASHA facilitator and four ASHA workers to stay back after official meetings, “criticised idol worship, encouraged them to read the Bible, screened Christian religious videos” and later invited them to a programme in Vadodara under the guise of an official health meeting, where Christian sermons and testimonies of converts were delivered. The complainant, the supervisor of the ASHA workers’ unit, alleged that refusal to participate attracted threats related to salary and employment.Also Read | Regulating religious conversions to Buddhism: What is the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act ?Senior advocate Mihir Joshi, appearing for Namrata, argued that she merely exercised her constitutional right under Article 25 to profess and propagate her religion as a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian denomination. He submitted that there was neither any conversion nor even an attempt to convert anyone through force, fraud, or allurement, and therefore the essential ingredients of offences under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act were absent. He questioned the complainant’s locus standi as well as the validity of the prosecution on the ground of sanction.Rejecting the submissions, the court observed that Article 25 protects religious propagation but not conversions brought about through coercive or fraudulent means. The court reiterated that anti-conversion legislation seeks to prevent exploitation through force, misrepresentation, undue influence, and fraud while safeguarding genuine freedom of conscience, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2021 Durga Yadav case.‘Attendance does not rule out fraudulent inducement’Examining the investigation, the court noted that Namrata also “highlighted the perceived benefits of conversion through the experiences narrated by persons present at the Vadodara programme”. It also held that merely because the victims attended the Vadodara programme and “partook of the meal served there would not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that there was no fraudulent inducement in securing their attendance at the said event”.The court held that it was required only to examine whether the allegations disclosed a cognisable offence and not whether the prosecution would ultimately succeed at trial.Story continues below this adThe court also rejected Namrata’s contention that she exercised no authority over the complainant, observing that as a female health worker, she occupied a supervisory position over the ASHA facilitator and other workers.The court also considered the state’s submission that the district magistrate granted prosecution sanction under section 6 of the Act before the chargesheet was filed.“The allegations made in the impugned FIR, coupled with the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003,” the high court held.Aditi Raja is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, stationed in Vadodara, Gujarat, with over 20 years in the field. She has been reporting from the region of Central Gujarat and Narmada district for this newspaper since 2013, which establishes her as a highly Authoritative and Trustworthy source on regional politics, administration, and critical socio-economic and environmental issues. Expertise: Core Authority & Specialization: Her reporting is characterized by a comprehensive grasp of the complex factors shaping Central Gujarat, which comprises a vast tribal population, including: Politics and Administration: In-depth analysis of dynamics within factions of political parties and how it affects the affairs in the region, visits of national leaders making prominent statements, and government policy decisions impacting the population on ground. Crucial Regional Projects: She consistently reports on the socio-economic and political impact of infrastructure projects in the region, especially the Statue of Unity, the Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River, the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail bullet train project as well as the National Highway infrastructure. Social Justice and Human Rights: Her reporting offers deep coverage of sensitive human-interest topics, including gender, crime, and tribal issues. Her reports cover legal proceedings from various district courts as well as the Gujarat High Court (e.g., the Bilkis Bano case remission, POCSO court orders, Public Interest Litigations), the plight of tribal communities, and broader social conflicts (e.g., Kheda flogging case). Local Impact & Disaster Reporting: Excels in documenting the immediate impact of events on communities, such as the political and civic fallout of the Vadodara floods, the subsequent public anger, and the long-delayed river redevelopment projects, Harni Boat Tragedy, Air India crash, bringing out a blend of stories from the investigations as well as human emotions. Special Interest Beat: She tracks incidents concerning Non-Resident Gujaratis (NRIs) including crime and legal battles abroad, issues of illegal immigration and deportations, as well as social events connecting the local Gujarati experience to the global diaspora. ... Read More Tags:anti-conversion lawGujarat High Court