Rajasthan HC lets anti-conversion case proceed, says anyone may report suspected violations and treats wrong section number as a clerical error

The complainant alleged that the petitioners were attempting to convert local residents to Christianity by denigrating Hindu deities and using supernatural activities to allure them.

An FIR was registered under Sections 3/5 of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025, Section 14(A) of the Foreigners Act and Section 223(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Following investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners under Sections 3/5 of the 2025 Act.

The Magistrate took cognizance but recorded the provision as “Section 3/25” of the Act, and committed the case to the Sessions Court.

The petitioners challenged the cognizance order in revision, contending, among other things, that the allegations and evidence did not disclose unlawful conversion and that the Magistrate had not properly applied his mind.

1. Whether the material in the police report disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 3/5 of the 2025 Act sufficient to sustain the cognizance order.

2. Whether the Magistrate’s reference to “Section 3/25,” although the Act contains no Section 25, invalidated the cognizance order.

3. Whether the complainant was competent to provide information leading to registration of the FIR under the 2025 Act.

Sections 3 and 5 of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025 prohibit and penalise conversion, or attempted conversion, by specified means, including misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, propaganda or other fraudulent means.

Section 4 permits any person to provide information concerning a contravention of the Act, while Section 7 makes offences under the Act cognizable and non-bailable.

At the cognizance stage, the court considers whether the police report discloses a prima facie basis to proceed; revision is supervisory and is not an appeal for reappraisal of evidence, and is generally warranted for manifest illegality or grave injustice.

The Court also relied on Section 403 of the BNSS, under which a clerical or arithmetical error may be corrected, and held that the erroneous statutory reference could be treated as clerical where the charge-sheet correctly specified the offence.

It referred to Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, on the limited scope of revision; Lalan Kumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1383, on the need for application of mind when issuing process; and Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P., AIR 1977 SC 908, on the distinction between protected religious propagation and conversion by prohibited means.

The Court held that Section 4 authorised any person, including the complainant, to give information about an alleged offence, and therefore rejected the challenge to his competence to report the matter.

It considered the complaint and witness statements collected during investigation, which the police relied on in filing the charge-sheet, and found that the material disclosed a prima facie case at the cognizance stage.

The Court distinguished the petitioners’ asserted right to practise and propagate religion from the alleged use of means prohibited by Section 3, observing that the Act did not prohibit religious practice or propagation as such.

It treated the reference to Section 3/25 as a clerical or typographical mistake because Section 25 did not exist in the Act and the police report charged the petitioners under Sections 3/5; the Sessions Court could proceed on that basis, while the petitioners retained the opportunity to seek discharge.

It held that the record disclosed a prima facie case for proceeding under Sections 3/5 of the 2025 Act and that the incorrect reference to Section 3/25 did not warrant setting aside the cognizance order, as it could be read as a reference to Sections 3/5.