Prayagraj, UP:

 Denying bail to a person accused of carrying out illegal conversion, the Allahabad High Court has observed that the Constitution grants citizens the right to freely profess, practice and propagate their religion but it cannot be extended to construe a collective right to proselytise” or convert other people to one’s religion.

The order was passed by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal while rejecting the bail plea of Shriniwas Rav Nayak of Maharajganj who was booked under sections 3 and 5 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

Passing the order, the court opined that the individual right to freedom of conscience, as guaranteed by the Constitution, ensures that every person has the liberty to choose, practice, and express their religious beliefs.

However, the individual right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be extended to construe a collective right to proselytize, which means attempting to convert others to one’s religion, according to the court.

“The right to religious freedom belongs equally to the person converting and the individual sought to be converted,” the court added.

It is alleged that, on February 15, 2024, the informant in the case was invited to the house of Vishwanath where many villagers mostly from the Scheduled Castes community had gathered. Vishwanath’s brother Brijlal, the applicant Shriniwas, and Ravindra were also present there.

They allegedly urged the informant to leave Hinduism and convert to Christianity, promising relief from pain and an improved life. While some villagers accepted Christianity and began praying, the informant escaped and reported the incident to the police.

The counsel for the Shriniwas pleaded that he had no connection with the alleged conversion and that he was a domestic help of one of the co-accused, a resident of Andhra Pradesh, and had been falsely implicated in the case.

It was also contended that no person who had converted to Christianity came forward to lodge a complaint.

On the other hand, the state counsel submitted that a case under the anti-conversion Act of 2021 was made out against the applicant.

He stated that the applicant came to Maharajganj where the conversion was taking place and was actively participating in the conversion from one religion to another which is against the law.

The court in its decision on Tuesday noted that Section 3 of the 2021 Act clearly prohibits conversion from one religion to another based on misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, and allurement.

In view of this, taking into account the allegations made against the accused, the court noted that the informant was persuaded to convert to another religion and this was prima facie sufficient to decline bail to the applicant as it established the fact that a conversion programme was going on and many villagers belonging to the Scheduled Castes community were being converted from Hinduism to Christianity.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Prayagraj:

The Allahabad High Court has asked the ASI to file its reply in a suit seeking a survey of Jama Masjid in Agra while claiming that the remains of Thakur Keshav Dev’s idol from Krishna Janmabhoomi were buried in the mosque.

The petitioners sought a survey by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) claiming that Mughal king Aurangzeb had demolished the temple of Keshav Dev in Mathura in 1670 and buried the remains of the idol under Jama Masjid in Agra.

The plaintiffs also prayed for the appointment of an advocate commissioner in the case seeking a survey of the masjid.

Justice Mayank Kumar Jain passed the order on Thursday while hearing a suit related to Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah case filed in the name of the deity — Thakur Keshav Dev Ji, Maharaj Virajman Mandir Katra Keshav Dev.

The court observed, “An application (A-5) is moved on behalf of plaintiffs to direct the respondent-authority to make SIT Report as well as Archeological Survey by the competent authority and Advocate Commissioner also be appointed. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the defendants may file reply to this application by the date fixed.”

Earlier, the management committee of Shahi Idgah Masjidi in Mathura had moved an impleadment application requesting the court to add it as a defendant in the suit. During the course of the hearing, a copy of the application was provided to the plaintiffs in the suit.

The court has fixed August 5 as the next date of hearing in the case.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Lucknow:

Religious congregations where conversions are taking place must be stopped, the Allahabad High Court has said, adding that the country’s “majority population would be in minority” if such gatherings are allowed.

The high court was hearing yesterday the bail petition of Kailash, who has been accused of taking people from Hamirpur in Uttar Pradesh to a gathering in Delhi for conversions.

The court’s order says that according to the FIR, Kailash took Ramkali Prajapati’s brother Ramphal to Delhi and he never returned home.

Ramphal, the FIR has said, had been suffering from mental illness and Kailash said that he will be treated at the gathering in Delhi and will be home in a week. When Ramphal did not return, she asked Kailash but did not get a satisfactory reply.

The FIR says that many people from the Hamirpur village were taken to the Delhi gathering and converted to Christianity. Kailash was arrested under charges of kidnapping and provisions of UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

The Uttar Pradesh government’s counsel, Additional Advocate General PK Giri, told the court that at such gatherings, a huge number of people are being converted to Christianity. He also pointed to statements of witnesses who have said Kailash had been taking people from the village for conversion and was getting paid in return.

Kailash’s counsel Saket Jaiswal said Ramphal was not converted to Christianity and had only attended a Christian gathering. “It was Sonu Paster who was holding such gathering, and he has already been enlarged on bail,” he argued.

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal said in his order that Article 25 of the Constitution provides for freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, but does not provide for conversion from one faith to another faith.

“The word ‘Propagation’ means to promote, but it does not mean to convert any person from his religion to another religion,” the order says.

The court noted that Ramphal never returned to the village and that several witnesses have accused Kailash of taking away people for conversion.

“If this process is allowed to be carried out, the majority population of this country would be in minority one day, and such religious congregation should be immediately stopped where the conversion is taking place and changing religion of citizen of India,” the court said, while denying bail to Kailash.

“It has come into notice of this Court in several cases that unlawful activity of conversion of people of SC/ST castes and other castes including economically poor persons into Christianity is being done at rampant pace throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh,” it added.

Prayagraj, UP:

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the law permits interfaith couples to marry under the Special Marriage Act without conversion.

The court also granted protection to an interfaith live-in couple facing threats.

The court observed,”Interfaith couples who choose not to convert for marriage can register their union under the Special Marriage Act.”

Justice Jyotsna Sharma made this observation while granting protection to a live-in couple facing threats to their life and liberty due to the nature of their relationship.

The state objected to the plea, arguing that the couple claimed to have married by agreement, which is not legally recognised.

The court dismissed the argument, stating that while marriage by agreement is invalid, parties can apply for court marriage under the Special Marriage Act without conversion.

“In my opinion, marriage through agreement is definitely invalid in law. However, law does not prevent the parties from applying for court marriage under the Special Marriage Committee without conversion,” Justice Sharma said in her order.

The couple, who expressed their desire to marry under the Special Marriage Act without changing their religion, sought protection to proceed with their registration.

“Supplementary affidavit has been submitted in which it is categorically submitted that they will continue to follow the faith/religion of their own and do not propose to convert and that they are mature enough to take decisions regarding their lives. Further they seriously want to enter into matrimonial relationship as per law,” the court recorded in the order.

The court granted protection to the couple and instructed them to solemnise their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, providing documentary proof in a supplementary affidavit. The next hearing is scheduled for July 10.

The Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, provides a legal framework for the marriage of people belonging to different religions.

Under this law, one can marry with a person of other religion without changing his or her faith. It promotes a society where love transcends faith and is legally recognised throughout India.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Prayagraj:

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the dismissal of a judicial officer accused of demanding dowry and attempting to influence a junior judge in the case.

If there exists a temple of justice, the judicial officers must act like its high priests, a bench comprising justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh said and stressed that a judicial officer who defiles his office merits no mercy.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by Umesh Kumar Sirohi, an additional district judge who was removed from service, the court said, “Any transgression committed by a judicial officer to extract benefit for himself or those to whom he may be closely related would always be dealt with severely”.

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the penalty order passed by the state government dated April 16, 2021, whereby Sirohi – then serving as additional district and sessions judge, Lalitpur – was removed from service with immediate effect.

“Once the ‘bad fish’ is identified, it may not be retained in the ‘tank’. No room may ever exist and no margin of error may be permitted as may allow any possibility for a judicial officer to seek to influence another judicial officer in the exercise of judicial function.

“If there exists a temple of justice, the judicial officers must act like its high priests who must not only conduct the rituals involving the discharge of their duties on the dais but they must zealously guard the purity of the temple itself,” the court said.

The two charge sheets were issued against the petition by the administrative side of the High Court in 2016 and 2017.

In the first charge sheet, Sirohi was accused of demanding dowry for the marriage of his brother, also a judge, and inflicting an injury on his own hand as a conspiracy to implicate his brother’s wife and her family.

Sirohi’s wife had registered a police complaint in this regard against the sister-in-law and her family members, leading to the registration of a case against them.

Another allegation against Sirohi and his brother was that they had tried to influence the investigating officer in the matter by misusing their official position.

In the second charge sheet, it was alleged that Sirohi had tried to influence an additional chief judicial magistrate in the proceedings of the case registered by his wife. He was also accused of making false allegations of bias against the then district judge, Meerut.

In 2020, the High Court accepted the inquiry reports against Sirohi and recommended his dismissal from service. The state accepted the recommendation, leading to his removal from service, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

After hearing the arguments and examining the records, the court concluded that a case of most serious misconduct had been made out against Sirohi.

The court noted that charges alleging efforts to influence the investigating officer and demand of dowry were found to be true. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Prayagraj (UP):

In an important judgment, the Allahabad High Court has held that the registration of a will is not necessary in Uttar Pradesh.

The state government had made registration of wills mandatory from August 23, 2004.

“Wills in Uttar Pradesh are not required to be registered and a will, for its non-registration, will not be void whether before or after the Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act, 2004,” the court said.

A division bench of Justices Siddhartha Varma and Ajit Kumar held that section 169(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act will be void to the extent it provides for the registration of a will. The high court made it clear that a will will not be considered invalid if it is not registered.

The bench pronounced the verdict on Friday while disposing of a “reference” sent to it by the chief justice in a petition filed by Pramila Tiwari.

The high court held that section 169(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, insofar as it requires a will to be compulsorily registered, to be contrary to the Indian Registration Act, 1908, which makes the registration of a will optional.

Hence, the court held that the amendment of section 169(3) of the 1950 Act to that extent that it requires a will to be compulsorily registered is void and accordingly, struck down the said part.

The then Uttar Pradesh government had made registration of wills mandatory from August 23, 2004.

In the Shobhnath case, the high court had said the registration of a will was necessary after the law came into force. But in the Jahan Singh case, it was said a will becomes effective after death and therefore, it should be registered at the time of presentation.

For a clarification on the two contrary views, the chief justice had sent the reference to the division bench, which summed up the issue that “whether a will reduced into writing prior to August 23, 2004 is required to be compulsorily registered in the event the testator dies after the said date”.

During the proceedings, the court examined whether the state legislature, without the president’s assent, could have made the registration of wills compulsory by incorporating a legal provision to this effect as wills, intestacy and succession under the Constitution are subject matters of the Concurrent List and a central law is already there on the subject of registration of wills under the Registration Act, 1908.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Prayagraj, UP:

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to the two persons who had allegedly fired shots at Lok Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) and All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) Chief Asaduddin Owaisi’s vehicle during the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections of 2022.

Justice Pankaj Bhatia, while granting bail to the accused said that the accused Sachin Sharma and Subham Gurjar had not been named in the First Information Report (FIR).

They were linked with the offence only on the basis of the opinion expressed by the Investigating Officer after analysing the CCTV footage, the court added.

The court further said that the evidence linking the applicants with the offence in question are prima facie weak evidence.

“The material of verifying and matching the identity of the persons seen in the CCTV footage with the actual photographs prima-facie appears to be missing from the case diary. Thus, the evidence linking the applicants with the offence in question is prima-facie weak evidence at this stage,” said the Court.

The Court also added that in the three statements recorded so far, the names of the accused had not surfaced and that the victim as well as the two persons who were with him in the car did not know the accused.

However, the victim through his lawyer moved an intervention application before the Court.

In the application, it was submitted that one of the accused, after being granted bail in 2022, had bragged before the media that he had no remorse and would not apologise at all.

However, the Court said that the interview “prima-facice appears to be in the realm of speech or interview given by applicant no.1 before the telemedia and there being nothing more to suggest that actual threat was issued by the applicant to the victim”.

Gunshots were fired at AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi’s car in Pilkhuwa of Hapur district of Uttar Pradesh during the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections of 2022.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Lucknow:

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed international shooter Vartika Singh’s plea challenging an MP/MLA court order rejecting her defamation complaint against Union minister Smriti Irani.

The Lucknow bench of the high court said that while replying to journalists’ questions, if the petitioner was said to be associated with the Congress party or the “Gandhi family”, it was not her defamation.

The bench of Faiz Alam Khan passed the verdict on March 5 which was uploaded on Monday.

Vartika Singh had filed a case in the Sultanpur MP/MLA court, accusing Ms Irani of defamation. The case was dismissed by the special court on October 21, 2022.

The petitioner had challenged the MP/MLA court’s order in the high court.

Ms Singh’s allegation was that when journalists asked Irani about the allegations made by the petitioner against her personal secretary, Ms Irani described the petitioner as a “pawn” of the Congress and said she was having direct links with the Gandhi family.

Quoting Irani’s entire conversation with journalists, the high court said that before giving the statement in question, Ms Irani talked about other matters and during this time she did not even take the name of the petitioner.

The court said that when asked about the petitioner, Ms Irani had said the petitioner had links with the Congress and also had a criminal history. The court found that criminal cases were registered against the petitioner.

The bench said that if the court looks at Ms Irani’s statements, she was criticising a political party and she had no intention of defaming the petitioner.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Prayadraj, UP:

The Allahabad High Court recently held that liking an “obscene” post on social media does not constitute an offence, however, sharing or reposting such content will attract penal consequences.

The court in its observations on Wednesday said sharing such a post would amount to “transmission” under Section 67 of the Information Technology (IT) Act and will be punishable.

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made the remarks as he quashed the criminal proceedings pending against Mohd Imran Kazi of Agra filed under section 67 of IT Act and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Mohd Imran Kazi was under trial for liking another person’s post for unlawful assembly.

“I do not find any material which could connect the applicant with any objectionable post, as there is no offensive post available in the Facebook and WhatsApp accounts of the applicant. Therefore, no case is made out against the applicant,” the judge noted.

He said though under the IT Act transmitting obscene material is an offence, in the present case “the applicant has liked the post of one Farhan Usman for unlawful assembly, but liking a post will not amount to publishing or transmitting the post, therefore, merely liking a post will not attract section 67 IT Act.” “Even otherwise section 67 of the IT Act is for obscene material and not for provocative material,” the court said.

A criminal case was registered against petitioner Mohd Imran Kazmi and a charge sheet was filed against him for liking “provocative” messages on social media, which resulted in the assembly of about 600-700 persons belonging to the Muslim community for arranging procession without permission.

The court of CJM, Agra, took cognisance of the charge sheet and issued a non-bailable warrant against him on June 30, 2023. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Prayagraj:

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a person’s application for a passport cannot be withheld merely on the ground that the applicant has a pending criminal case.

Disposing of a writ petition filed by Akash Kumar of Jaunpur district, a division bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar on Wednesday also directed the passport authorities to decide the application of petitioner for the issuance of a passport within six weeks.

The petitioner filed the writ petition requesting the court to quash the order dated July 21, 2023 passed by Passport Seva Kendra, Varanasi by which his application was rejected on the ground that the police verification report is not clear.

The petitioner also requested the court to direct the Regional Passport Office, Lucknow and Passport Seva Kendra, Varanasi to issue a passport to him.

The petitioner’s counsel argued in the court that it is settled law by the Supreme Court as well as this court that a passport cannot be denied merely on the basis of criminal case. In support of his submission, he placed the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Basoo Yadav vs Union of India (2022).

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)