The Gujarat High Court ruled that individuals who influence, pressure, or allure others to convert to Islam can be held liable for a prima facie offence. The judgment clarifies accountability regardless of the accused’s own religious history.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
GUJARAT: The Gujarat High Court refused to grant relief to men accused of forced religious conversion, dismissing their argument that they could not be charged since they themselves had converted from Hinduism to Islam. The case raises important questions about the legal interpretation of “victim” and “accused” in cases of alleged coercive conversions.
Background of the Case
The controversy centers around allegations that a group of individuals in Bharuch’s Amod region lured Hindu villagers to convert to Islam by promising incentives such as new houses, food grains, cash, and jobs. According to reports, approximately 100 people from 37 families were converted under these circumstances.
The accused include individuals who were themselves former Hindus, who later converted to Islam. They argued that their own conversion history should exempt them from being treated as perpetrators, suggesting they could also be considered victims of religious conversion.
The Court’s Reasoning
Justice Nirzar S Desai rejected this argument, emphasizing that prior conversion does not preclude a person from being held accountable if they subsequently engage in coercing others. The Court stated:
“On account of their act of influencing and pressurizing and alluring other persons to convert to Islam… conversion of the victims indicates that a prima facie offence is made out. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that those persons who are originally Hindus and subsequently converted to Islam can be said to be the victims…”
In essence, the Court differentiated between personal victimhood and acts that allegedly coerce others into conversion. The judgment underlined that the legal responsibility arises from one’s actions, not solely one’s own religious history.
Legal Implications
The accused faces charges under multiple laws, including:
- Various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
- The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- The Information Technology Act
- The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003
Six petitions filed in 2022 sought to quash the FIR, but the Court refused to interfere with the ongoing investigation or trial. However, it allowed the accused to pursue appropriate remedies once the investigation is complete and the chargesheet is filed.
Appearance:
For the accused: Senior Counsel IH Syed with advocates Muhammad Quasim Vora, Anik Kadri, MTM Hakim, Arjun M Joshi Isa Hakim
For the State: Additional Advocate General Mitesh Amin, Public Prosecutor Hardik A Dave with Additional Public Prosecutors Ronak Raval and Trupesh Kathiriya
For other respondents: Senior Counsel Maulin Raval with advocates Harshesh Kakkad, Ruchika Kakkad, Yogini Parikh, Yash J Patel, Ogini Parikh, RC Kodekar, Parthiv A Bhatt and Maharshi Patel
Case Title:
Varyava Abdul Vahab Mahmood vs State Of Gujarat
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO.309 of 2022
Read judgment:
