REV. STAINISLAUS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 611 · Decided: 17-01-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

611 
REV. STA:INISLAUS 
v: 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
January 17, 1977 
{A N. RAY, c. J.; M. H. BllG, R. s. SARKARIA, p, N. SHJNGHAL AND 
. 
• 
JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 25(1)-Freedom of re/igion-Rig;zt to pro-
fess-Practice and propogate religion-Whether forcible and fraudulent 
con-
version included-Public order-Meaning of-Seventh Schedule List II Entry 
1-Madhya Pradesh Dharnia Swatantraya Adhlnivam 1968-0rissa Freedom 
of Religion Act 1967-Constitutional validity of. 
The constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh 
Dharma Swatantraya 
Adhiniyam, 1968, was challenged in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and 
the constitutional validity of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 
1967 
was 
challenged in the High Court of Orissa. The two Acts prohibit forcible con-
version and make the offence punishable. The Madhya Pradesh High 
Court 
upheld the validity of the Act. The Orissa High Court held that Art. 25 ( 1) 
of the Constitution guarantees propogatj.on of religion and conversion 1s a part 
of Christian religion; that the State Legislature has no power to 
enact 
the 
impugned legislation which in pith and substance is a law relating to religion; 
and that entry 97 of List I would apply. 
Upholding the validity of both the Acts, 
HELO.: ( 1) Article 25 guarantees to all persons right to fr.eedom and con-
science and the right freely to profess, pract.ice and propogate religion subject 
to public order, morality and health. 
The word 'propogate' has beel'l used in 
the Article as meaning to transmit or spread from person to person or .from 
place to place. The Article does not grant right to convert other person to 
one's own religion but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of 
its tenets. 
The freedom of religion .enshrined in Art. 25 is not guaranteed in 
respect of one religion ol)ly but covers all religions alike which can be 
pro-
perly enjoyed by a person if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate 
with the like freedom of persons following other religion. 
What is 
freedom 
for one is freedom for the other in equal measure and there can, therefore, be 
no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one's own 
religion. 
[616 B-F, 617 A-BJ 
(2) The Madhya Pradesh Act prohibits conversion from one 
religion 
to 
another by use of force, allurement or fraudulent means and matters inciden-
tal thereto. Si!Jlilarly, the Orissa Act prohibits conversion by the use of force 
·or by inducemen.t or by any fraudulent means.· Both the statutes, 
therefore, 
clearly provide for the maintenanee of public order because if forcible conver-
sion had not been prohibited that would have created public disorder 
in 
the 
States. 
The expression "public order" has a wide connotation. 
[617 C-E] 
Ratilal Pc.11achand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay & Ors. 
[1954] 
S.C.R. 
1055; Ramesh Thappar v. The State of Madras [1950] S.C.R. 594; Ramiilal 
Modi v. State of U.P. [1957] S.C.R. 860 and Arun Ghosh v. State of West 
Bengal [1966] I S.C.R. 709, followed. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
{3) If an attempt is made to raise communal passions, e.g. on the .ground 
that someone has been forcibly converted to another. religion it would 
in 
all 
H . 
probability give tise to an apprehe~&lon of a breach of the nublic. o:der effect-
ing ·!he community at large. The impugned Acts· therefore fall w1thm the our-
view of Entry I of List II of the Seventh Schedule as they are meant to avoid 
5-112SCI/77 
A 
B 
612 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1977] 2 S.C.R. 
disturbaD:ce to the public order by prohibiting conversion from one religion to 
another m a manner r.eprehensible to the. conscience of the community. The 
two Acts d.o i:ot provide for the regulat10n of religion and do not fall under 
Entry 97 of Lm I. [618 A-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal N 
1489 
& 
1511 of 1974. 
OS. 
(Appeals by certificate/Special Leave from the Judgment 
and 
Order dated 23-4-1974 of the Madhya Pradesh 'High Court in Misc 
Petition No. 136/73). 
· 
Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 1974. 
·(From the Judgment and Order dated 23-4-1974 of the Madhya 
c 
Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No. 159/71) and 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Civil Appeal Nos. 344-346 of 1976. 
(Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
24-10-1972 of the Orissa High Court in C.J.C. 185, 186 and 217 of 
1969). 
Frank Anthony, in CA 1489, Crl. A. 255/74 and CA 346/76 for 
the appellant in CAs 1489 and 1511/74 and Crl. A. No.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.