Supreme Court quashes SHUATS FIRs
The Supreme Court on October 17 quashed several FIRs and the resulting criminal proceedings brought under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, against the Vice Chancellor and other officials of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Prayagraj. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra read out a detailed order that set aside a string of FIRs lodged across Uttar Pradesh, finding legal and factual defects in several complaints and the related investigations.
The petitions reached the Supreme Court as Special Leave Petitions under Article 136, and as writ petitions under Article 32. The petitioners, including Vice Chancellor Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal and Director Vinod Bihari Lal, argued that the FIRs were malicious, factually baseless and part of a coordinated campaign to disrupt university functioning and harass a religious minority. They asked the Court to quash the FIRs and to consolidate the various complaints for a fair hearing.
In a concise set of conclusions the bench disposed of multiple matters. The Court held that FIR 224/2022 in Fatehpur was invalid because it was lodged by a person who was not competent under the UP Act to file the complaint, and therefore that FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed. Two other FIRs, 55/2023 and 60/2023, were found to be barred by the principle in TT Antony that multiple FIRs on the same incident are not maintainable, and were accordingly quashed. The Court also allowed writ petitions seeking the quashing of FIR 224/2022 and FIR 47/2023, finding them maintainable in the exceptional facts of the case.
The Court further reviewed the quality of the investigation in FIR 54/2023 and concluded the materials did not inspire confidence in the bona fides of the probe, making it a fit case for quashing. FIR 54/2023 and its consequential proceedings were set aside. On FIR 538/2023 the High Court had earlier declined to quash; the Supreme Court found that no offence under the UP Conversion Act had been made out as far as that statute is concerned, and therefore that portion should be quashed. The bench clarified, however, that allegations invoking Sections 307, 386 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code need further consideration and accordingly detagged the writ petition for separate hearing while continuing interim protection to the petitioners.
At earlier hearings the Court had flagged constitutional concerns with parts of the 2021 Uttar Pradesh law, observing that some provisions could impinge on the freedom guaranteed by Article 25. The Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, assisted the Court on the broader issue of unlawful conversions, cautioned that prosecutions must remain fair, and drew attention to evidence the State relied upon, including alleged recovery of Aadhaar printing machines and forged Aadhaar cards from university premises. The AG argued the FIRs disclosed cognisable offences under Section 3 of the 2021 Act, which criminalises conversions obtained by force, allurement or fraudulent means, and pointed to Section 4’s definition of who may lodge complaints.
The Supreme Court had previously afforded interim protection from arrest to the Vice Chancellor and others; that protection remains in place for the petitioners while the Court continues to examine the remaining issues. The case is formally recorded as RAJENDRA BIHARI LAL AND ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 123/2023 and connected matters.
This decision will be watched closely because it touches on tensions between measures aimed at preventing coercive conversions and constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and minority rights. It also highlights the Court’s scrutiny of both the competence of complainants under state conversion statutes and the quality of police investigations before allowing criminal proceedings to proceed.
