In an affidavit filed in the Allahabad High Court, the BJP government in UP led by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath urged the court to deem police officials as ‘aggrieved’ persons to file FIRs under the contentious anti-conversion law, which mandates that such cases should strictly be filed only by victims or their close relatives.
On September 10, the Adityanath government submitted an affidavit to the Allahabad High Court, asserting that police officers can indeed be considered “aggrieved” persons under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, The Wire reported.
The affidavit argues that police officers possess the requisite authority to initiate FIRs in cases of unlawful conversion, even though the original statute limits this role to victims and their immediate kin.
The controversy centres around the legal standing of the police in filing such complaints. The issue gained prominence following a case involving Durga Yadav, a pastor from Jaunpur. Yadav was charged under the anti-conversion law for allegedly attempting to convert impoverished Hindus to Christianity.
He contested the legality of the FIR lodged against him, asserting that the police, led by Station House Officer Ram Janam Yadav, lacked the authority to file the complaint as they did not qualify as “aggrieved persons” under Section 4 of the 2021 Act.
Section 4 of the 2021 Act specifies that complaints can only be filed by the aggrieved individual or their family members. However, the recently amended law, effective from August 6, 2024, expands the scope to include “any person” as competent to lodge a complaint. Nevertheless, the legal validity of FIRs filed before this amendment remains under scrutiny, particularly in cases like Yadav’s.
The Durga Yadav case has catalysed broader legal debates, questioning whether the police, as third-party entities, can legitimately act as complainants. This issue has been compounded by varying judicial interpretations across different benches of the Allahabad High Court, which have, at times, led to inconsistent applications of the law. Such discrepancies have, in some instances, facilitated increased police activity and allegations of vigilantism.
In Yadav’s case, the FIR listed a range of individuals, including Yadav himself, another pastor, and several associates, accusing them of illegally converting people through monetary incentives and false promises. The police’s raid on Yadav’s prayer centre allegedly uncovered various religious materials, further fueling the case.
Justice Vinod Diwakar, overseeing the case, directed the Uttar Pradesh home department to clarify the legal standing of police officers in lodging FIRs under the anti-conversion law. Justice Diwakar also noted a significant number of similar cases challenging the legality of police-initiated FIRs. The court has temporarily halted proceedings in Yadav’s case while awaiting further clarification from the government.
In its affidavit, the Uttar Pradesh government contends that Section 4 of the 2021 Act should not be viewed as exhaustive. The state argues that the inclusion of police officers as “aggrieved persons” is justified given their role in maintaining public order.
The government asserts that Section 4 should be interpreted in harmony with the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows police officers to register FIRs based on information received about cognizable offences.
The government’s affidavit also addresses concerns that restricting the scope of “aggrieved persons” to victims and their families could hinder law enforcement’s ability to address mass conversions or situations involving orphans and other vulnerable individuals. The government posits that such an interpretation would undermine the act’s objectives and create legal inconsistencies.
The Allahabad High Court is set to revisit the matter on September 19.