SHUATS’ VC denied relief,anti-conversion law deemed valid

The Allahabad High Court in the case Dr R.B. Lal And 7 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others observed and has refused to grant any relief to the VC of Allahabad’s Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, SHUATS, Dr Rajendra Bihari Lal and 7 others, in an FIR filed against them over the allegation of offering allurement to a man to convert to Christianity.
The bench comprising of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Gajendra Kumar in the case observed and has stated that section 3 and section 5 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 do not appear to be glaringly unconstitutional or being ex facie unconstitutional.
The bench in the case observed wherein an FIR was lodged in February 2023 that the same contains direct allegations of allurement having been offered by Dr. Lal and 7 others to the first informant and, therefore, such allegation prima facie, constitute an offence under Section 3 of the Act.
Background of the Case:
The court in the case was dealing with a Criminal Writ plea filed by 8 petitioners wherein seeking protection from arrest, while quashing of the FIR and a declaration that Section 3, section 5 and section 12 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 are ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
Further,, it had been contended before the court that the main offence against the petitioners is a violation of the provisions of the 2021 Act, thus, no offence is disclosed because the provisions of law contained in Section 8 and Section a9 of the Act, which are mandatory and have not been complied with, therefore no religious conversion actually took place in the said matter,
The court while relying upon the Supreme Court judgement in the case Health For Millions Trust vs Union Of India and Bhavesh D. Parish & Others vs Union Of India And Another, wherein the counsel, Senior Counsel Gopal Chaturvedi, appearing for the petitioners argued that since the petition challenges the vires of Section 3, Section 5 and Section 12 of the 2021 Act, which being ex facie unconstitutional or manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional, thus, the court can grant an interim order in favour of the petitioners during the pendency of the petition.
The court in the case noted that the aforesaid ruling of the Apex Court, it had been held that unless a provision of law whose vires is impugned, being an ex facie unconstitutional or manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional, the court can grant no interim order during the pendency of the petition. The court stated that since the vires of some sections of the Act are under challenge, the respondents may file counter affidavits in the matter within the period of two weeks.
Accordingly, the court listed the petition, thereafter, for admission or hearing.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Gopal Chaturvedi assisted by Advocate Anuj Srivastava appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Additional Advocate General Manish Goel, Advocates Kamla Singh Vishal Tandon represented the respondent.