Rev Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

The landmark case of Rev. Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others addresses the constitutional validity of state laws that regulate religious conversions. This Supreme Court judgement of 1977 serves as a vital precedent in defining the boundaries of religious freedom under the Indian Constitution and the legislative competence of State Legislatures.

The case revolves around the interpretation of Article 25, which guarantees the freedom of religion, and the legality of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967. Both Acts aim to curb forced religious conversions through coercion, allurement, or fraudulent means.

Facts of Rev Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Rev. Stanislaus, a Christian priest, was prosecuted under Sections 3, 4, and 5(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, which prohibit unlawful religious conversions. The case originated when the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Baloda-Bazar sanctioned Rev. Stanislaus’s prosecution for alleged violations of the Act. The petitioner challenged the validity of the Act on the grounds that it violated Article 25 of the Constitution and that the Madhya Pradesh Legislature lacked the competence to enact such a law.

Similarly, the constitutional validity of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, was challenged in the Orissa High Court. This Act also prohibited religious conversions through force, allurement, or fraudulent means.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the validity of its state law, stating it was within the State Legislature’s competence and did not infringe upon Article 25. Conversely, the Orissa High Court ruled the Orissa Act unconstitutional, stating that the propagation of religion, including conversion, is protected under Article 25. It also held that the State Legislature lacked the competence to enact the law.

The matter was escalated to the Supreme Court, which combined the challenges to both Acts for a unified decision.

Issues for Consideration

The issues raised in Rev Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others were:

1. Violation of Article 25: Does the prohibition of forced religious conversions infringe upon the right to propagate religion under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution?
2. Legislative Competence: Do the State Legislatures of Madhya Pradesh and Orissa have the authority to enact laws regulating religious conversions under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Right to Propagate Religion: The petitioner argued that Sections 3, 4, and 5(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Act violate Article 25(1), which guarantees every individual the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion.
2. Legislative Authority: It was contended that regulating religious conversions does not fall within the scope of Entry 1 (Public Order) of the State List (List II) or Entry 3 (Criminal Law) of the Concurrent List (List III) under the Seventh Schedule. The petitioner argued that the matter falls under Entry 97 of the Union List (List I), granting exclusive legislative authority to Parliament.
3. Ultra Vires Legislation: The Madhya Pradesh Act was challenged as ultra vires the Constitution, as it allegedly infringed upon the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 25 and lacked a clear basis in the legislative competence of the State.
4. Propagation Includes Conversion: The petitioner contended that the right to propagate one’s religion inherently includes the right to convert others to that religion, provided the conversion is voluntary.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Maintenance of Public Order: The State argued that the Acts were designed to curb conversions obtained through coercion, allurement, or fraudulent means, which often lead to communal tensions and public disorder. The State emphasised that Article 25(1) permits restrictions on religious freedom in the interest of public order, morality, and health.
2. Legislative Competence: The State contended that the Acts fall squarely under Entry 1 (Public Order) of the State List, as they aim to maintain public peace and prevent communal disharmony.
3. Scope of Propagation: The respondents argued that the right to propagate religion under Article 25 does not extend to the right to convert others. Propagation involves spreading one’s faith, not compelling others to adopt it.
4. Equality and Religious Freedom: The Acts were presented as ensuring equality and freedom for all individuals by protecting them from forced or fraudulent conversions.

Rev Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Judgement

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, based on the following findings:

1. Article 25 and the Scope of Religious Freedom:

• Freedom to Propagate Religion: The Court clarified that Article 25(1) guarantees the right to propagate one’s religion but does not include the right to convert others. Propagation involves the transmission or dissemination of one’s religious beliefs. Conversion, especially through coercion or fraudulent means, infringes upon the freedom of conscience of the converted individual.
• Restrictions on Religious Freedom: Article 25 explicitly subjects religious freedoms to public order, morality, and health. The Acts were deemed valid as they address issues of public order by preventing forced conversions.

2. Legislative Competence of State Legislatures:

• Public Order and Entry 1 (State List): The Court held that the regulation of forced religious conversions falls within the ambit of public order, which is a State subject under Entry 1 of List II. The Acts aim to prevent communal tensions and disruptions arising from coercive or fraudulent conversions, thereby preserving public peace.
• Rejection of Entry 97 (Union List): The Court rejected the argument that the Acts fall under Entry 97 of the Union List. It stated that the Acts do not regulate religion but instead address public order.

3. Distinction Between Propagation and Conversion:

The Court emphasised that the right to propagate religion does not equate to a right to convert others. Forcible conversions violate the principle of religious equality and disrupt societal harmony.

4. Public Order and Communal Harmony:

Drawing from cases like Ramjilal Modi v. State of U.P. and Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, the Court observed that forced conversions often incite communal tensions, leading to breaches of public order.

Rev. Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh Summary

The Rev. Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) case upheld the validity of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, and Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, which prohibit forced religious conversions through coercion, allurement, or fraud. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the right to propagate one’s religion but does not include the right to convert others forcibly. 

It clarified that the Acts aim to maintain public order by preventing communal tensions arising from forced conversions. The Court also affirmed the legislative competence of State Legislatures to enact such laws under Entry 1 (Public Order) of the State List. This landmark judgement protects individual freedom while ensuring communal harmony.