The Madhya Pradesh High Court held “In absence of a written complaint by an aggrieved person, the police do not have any jurisdiction to inquire or investigate into the offence committed under Section 3 of Freedom of Religion Act of 2021.”
—
THE Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition against grant of anticipatory bail to an archbishop and a nun who were booked for religious conversion of children in a shelter home in Madhya Pradesh.
The petition was filed by the Madhya Pradesh government and the National Commission of Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) against an Order of the high court of the state.
The NCPCR performs the powers and functions assigned to it under The Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005.
Despite issuing the notice, the Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra, questioned the NCPCR’s locus standi to register a complaint under the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021.
Section 3 of the Act provides for the complaint to be made by a person aggrieved, who has been converted or on whom an attempt of conversion has been made or by persons who are parents or siblings or with leave of the court by any person who is related by blood, marriage or adoption, guardianship or custodianship, as may be applicable.
The Bench opined that the NCPCR could have taken action under The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (JJ Act), 2015, but to file a complaint under the Freedom of Religion Act, the aggrieved person should be the one mentioned in Section 3 of the Act.
The lawyer appearing for the NCPCR submitted that if the literal interpretation given by the high court to Section 3 is accepted, then the NCPCR would be stripped of its statutory functions and responsibilities under the JJ Act.
The lawyer for NCPCR also drew the attention of the Bench to Section 109 of the JJ Act which casts a duty on the commission to monitor the implementation of the provisions of the JJ Act.
The lawyer for NCPCR stressed that she is not requesting for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused, but her submissions were limited to the interpretation of Section 3 the Freedom of Religion Act and relevant provisions of the JJ Act.
Acknowledging the pleading, the Bench issued notice observing that it needed to clarify the interplay between the state’s Freedom of Religion Act and the JJ Act.
The Bench, however, rejected to stay the accused persons bail as well as observations of the high court, despite the commission’s lawyer’s fervent request to stay the observation.
Additional Advocate General Ankita Chaudhary appeared for the Madhya Pradesh government.
Background
The two accused, an archbishop and a nun, were booked by the Madhya Pradesh police under Section 75 JJ Act and Section 3 and 5 of the Freedom of Religion Act, 2021.
Prank Kanoongo, the chairperson of the NCPCR, carried out an inspection of Asha Kiran Institute in Katni district on May 29, 2023.
On the basis of the inspection, a first information report (FIR) was registered against the duo.
During inspection, it was found that Hindu children were allegedly forced to read the Bible and visit a church.
Allegations have also been made that children at the institute are not allowed to celebrate Diwali and are forced to chant Christian prayer.
On June 19, the high court granted bail to the accused persons.
The high court noted that Section 75 of JJ Act provides for a sentence of only up to three years.
On the Freedom of Religion Act, the high court noted that the police was not expected to inquire or investigate in a case of alleged forced conversion unless a written complaint had been filed by a person aggrieved.
The high court held: “In the present case, the complaint has been lodged by an individual who conducted an inspection. No complaint has been made by a person converted or person aggrieved or against whom an attempt has been made for conversion or by their relatives or blood relatives.”
“In absence of a written complaint by an aggrieved person, the police do not have any jurisdiction to inquire or investigate into the offence committed under Section 3 of Freedom of Religion Act of 2021,” the high court concluded.
