Mumbai (AsiaNews) – The Bombay High Court, through its Nagpur bench, has quashed a complaint and the related charge sheet against four residents of Amravati, in the Indian state of Maharashtra, accused of pressuring a Hindu couple to convert to Christianity.
In an order dated 6 October, Judge M. W. Chandwani ruled that promoting one’s own religion does not, in itself, amount to insulting the religious beliefs of others or deliberately offending the religious sentiments of a community. According to the court, the charges against the four defendants, even when interpreted in the most unfavourable light, did not demonstrate the malicious intent required by law to constitute the alleged offences.
This is an important ruling for the Indian state of Maharashtra, where – at the instigation of the Hindu nationalists of the BJP, the party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi – local anti-conversion legislation came into force on 28 August, a development viewed with great concern by local Christian communities.
The defendants in the case were Joseph Khudawant, his son Victor, his daughter-in-law Elvina and the social worker Anant Mankar. According to the prosecution, they had promised a couple monthly financial support, payment of their children’s school fees and a house in exchange for their conversion to Christianity. The four contested this account, denying that they had acted with unlawful intent. The judgement clarifies the distinction between the dissemination of one’s own religious beliefs and the commission of an offence against another religious community. “The appellants,” the judgement states, “merely promoted their religion, and this does not mean that, in doing so, they have offended the religious feelings of any group.”
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate one’s religion, subject to public order, morality, health and other constitutional provisions. This right, however, does not authorise the use of force, deception or other unlawful means to secure a conversion.
The judgement, therefore, does not constitute authorisation for coercive conversions, nor does it mean that all complaints regarding illegal conversions are unfounded. Rather, it establishes that any criminal charge must satisfy the specific requirements laid down by law and be supported by sufficient evidence.
Another key aspect concerns the application of the law. The disputed events are alleged to have taken place in 2025, that is, before the Maharashtra law against illegal religious conversions came into force. The Court therefore considered the legal framework in force at the time of the events, emphasising the importance of the principle that a subsequent law cannot be applied retrospectively to criminalise past conduct.
The Amravati case raises questions about the risk that false or exaggerated allegations of forced conversion may be used to intimidate Christians and hinder legitimate religious activities, including those of small Pentecostal groups.
