Rev Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Rev. Stanislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (1977)
Citation: AIR 1977 SC 908
🔹 Background of the Case:
This landmark case dealt with the right to propagate religion under Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution and whether that includes the right to convert another person.
The case challenged the validity of anti-conversion laws enacted by:
Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Act, 1968
Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967
These laws prohibited conversion from one religion to another by force, fraud, or inducement. Violations were criminal offences.
🔹 Petitioner:
Rev. Stanislaus, a Christian priest, challenged these laws on the grounds that they violated:
His fundamental right to propagate religion under Article 25(1).
🔹 Main Legal Issue:
Does the right to “propagate” religion under Article 25(1) include the right to convert another person to one’s religion?
🔹 Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India:
“Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.”
🔹 Supreme Court's Ruling:
The Court upheld the constitutionality of both the Madhya Pradesh and Orissa anti-conversion laws.
It held that:
"The right to propagate religion does not include the right to convert another person to one’s own religion."
Propagation means to spread or disseminate one’s religious beliefs — it does not mean the right to convert another person.
Forcible conversions or those by fraud or inducement infringe on the freedom of conscience of the person being converted.
🔹 Key Observations by the Court:
Right to propagate ≠ Right to convert.
The State has the power to regulate or prohibit conversions that are done by coercion, fraud, or inducement.
Conversion impacts public order, which justifies state interference under Article 25(1).
🔹 Significance of the Judgment:
| Aspect | Impact |
|---|---|
| Religious Freedom | Clarified that religious propagation has limits. |
| State Power | Upheld state laws that regulate religious conversions. |
| Public Order | Recognized that forced or fraudulent conversions can threaten public order. |
| Freedom of Conscience | Protected the individual's right not to be forcibly converted. |
🔹 Criticism and Ongoing Debate:
Religious groups argue it restricts genuine religious outreach.
Human rights advocates worry that such laws can be misused to harass minorities.
States like Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, etc., have since enacted their own anti-conversion laws, citing this judgment.
🔹 Conclusion:
Rev. Stanislaus v. State of M.P. is a landmark case that interpreted Article 25 to mean that:
Propagation is allowed, but conversion is not a fundamental right, especially when it infringes on another person's freedom of conscience.
The State can restrict religious conversions through law, especially when they're not voluntary.
Do write to us if you need any further assistance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments