{ "book_metadata": { "book_name": "History of Christianity in India: Source Materials", "book_author": "M. K. Kuriakose", "publisher": "Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge", "published_on": "2011" }, "chunks": [ { "chunk_index": 1, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 426 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00450-546d16afff694b4874f1.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Orissa High Court Judgment", "chunk_data": "198. HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT ON THE ORISSA FREEDOM OF RELIGION ACT OF 1968 (1972 A.D.)\n\nIn the late 1960s two states, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh, passed similar legislation severely limiting, in the eyes of most Christians in India, the constitutional right to freely propagate religion. Acting upon a suit filed by certain Protestants and Roman Catholics, the Orissa High Court in 1972 declared the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act 2 of 1968 to be unconstitutional. Though the High Court ruling was eventually overturned and the Act declared valid by the Supreme Court of India, the judgement of the Orissa High Court, extracts of which are reproduced here, makes clear the concerns of Indian Christians concerning this type of legislation. The judgement is published in toto in the National Christian Council Review, Vol. XCII, No. 12 (December 1972), pp. 499-517.", "time": { "start_year": 1972, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1972, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1972" }, "meta": { "people": [ "Protestants", "Roman Catholics" ], "places": [ "Orissa", "Madhya Pradesh", "India" ], "event": "The Orissa High Court declared the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968 unconstitutional.", "tags": [ "Law", "Religion", "Christianity" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 2, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 426 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00450-546d16afff694b4874f1.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Material Provisions of the Act", "chunk_data": "7. Sections 2, 3, and 4 are the material provisions of the Act with reference to which the vires thereof is attacked. These are those provisions:", "time": { "start_year": 1968, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1968, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1968" }, "meta": { "people": [], "places": [ "Orissa" ], "event": "The judgment identified Sections 2, 3, and 4 as the provisions under constitutional challenge.", "tags": [ "Law", "Religion" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 3, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 426 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00450-546d16afff694b4874f1.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Definition of Conversion", "chunk_data": "2. Definitions:\n\nIn this Act unless the context otherwise requires:\n\n(a) 'conversion' means renouncing one religion and adopting another;", "time": { "start_year": 1968, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1968, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1968" }, "meta": { "people": [], "places": [ "Orissa" ], "event": "The Act defined conversion as renouncing one religion and adopting another.", "tags": [ "Law", "Religion" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 4, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 426 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00450-546d16afff694b4874f1.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Definitions of Force and Fraud", "chunk_data": "(b) 'force' shall include a show of force or a threat of injury of any kind including threat of divine discipline or social excommunication;\n\n(c) 'fraud' shall include misrepresentation or any other fraudulent contrivance;\n\n(d) 'inducement' shall include the offer of any gift or gratification, any benefit, either pecuniary or otherwise.", "time": { "start_year": 1968, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1968, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1968" }, "meta": { "people": [], "places": [ "Orissa" ], "event": "The Act defined force, fraud, and inducement in relation to religious conversion.", "tags": [ "Law", "Religion" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 5, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 426 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00450-546d16afff694b4874f1.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Prohibition of Forced Conversion", "chunk_data": "3. Prohibition of forcible conversion:\n\nNo person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religious faith to another by the use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet any such conversion.", "time": { "start_year": 1968, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1968, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1968" }, "meta": { "people": [], "places": [ "Orissa" ], "event": "Section 3 prohibited conversion or attempted conversion by force, inducement, fraud, or abetment.", "tags": [ "Law", "Religion" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 6, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 426, 427 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00450-546d16afff694b4874f1.webp", "raw\\pages\\00451-cc6f19e999e6b5829391.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Punishment for Contravention", "chunk_data": "4. Punishment for contravention of the provisions of section 3:\n\nAny person contravening the provisions contained in section 3 shall, without prejudice to any civil liability, be punishable with imprisonment of either description which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both; Provided that in case the offence is committed in respect of a minor, a woman or a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, the punishment shall be imprisonment to the extent of two years and fine up to ten thousand rupees.", "time": { "start_year": 1968, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1968, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1968" }, "meta": { "people": [], "places": [ "Orissa" ], "event": "Section 4 established imprisonment and fines for violating the prohibition on forcible conversion, with enhanced penalties for protected groups.", "tags": [ "Law", "Justice" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 7, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 427 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00451-cc6f19e999e6b5829391.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Enforcement Provisions", "chunk_data": "Section 5 makes any offence under the Act cognisable and section 6 makes prosecution conditional upon sanction of the prescribed authority.", "time": { "start_year": 1968, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1968, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1968" }, "meta": { "people": [], "places": [ "Orissa" ], "event": "Sections 5 and 6 established cognisable offences and required official sanction for prosecution.", "tags": [ "Law", "Justice" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 8, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 427 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00451-cc6f19e999e6b5829391.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Christian Objections to Definitions", "chunk_data": "Counsel for the petitioners have conceded during argument that Christianity does not approve of 'force' or 'fraud' as methods of conversion. It has been indicated in the written note submitted by counsel that any conversion obtained by such process is void. Objection, however, is raised to the language used in the definitions 'fraud' and 'force'. It is stated that each of these two words, apart from being commonplace, has a known connotation having been used in the Penal Code for over a hundred years. Section 349 of the Code defines 'force' while section 25 defines 'fraudulently' (e.g. section 366-A and 415 I.P.C.). These words have received authoritative treatment in several judgements of Courts.", "time": { "start_year": 1972, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1972, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1972" }, "meta": { "people": [ "Counsel for the petitioners" ], "places": [ "Orissa", "India" ], "event": "The petitioners accepted that Christianity rejects force and fraud in conversion but challenged the Act's expanded definitions.", "tags": [ "Law", "Religion", "Courts" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 9, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 427 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00451-cc6f19e999e6b5829391.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Challenge to Expanded Definitions", "chunk_data": "If the impugned Act intended to prohibit the use of 'force' or 'fraud' as methods of conversion, mere reference to the words should have been enough. On the other hand, by giving extended meaning to the words, interference with the Christian religion has been caused.", "time": { "start_year": 1972, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1972, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1972" }, "meta": { "people": [ "Counsel for the petitioners" ], "places": [ "Orissa" ], "event": "The petitioners argued that the Act's extended meanings of force and fraud interfered with Christian religion.", "tags": [ "Law", "Religion" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 10, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 427 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00451-cc6f19e999e6b5829391.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Court Defense of Force Definition", "chunk_data": "It is true that 'force' as defined in the Code refers to physical force while the definition under the Act extends the scope. Threat of divine displeasure or social excommunication are said to constitute the extension of the concept. The petitioners have contended that people from the down-trodden sections of society ordinarily take to Christianity as an escape. It is in this background that the legitimacy of the purpose of the extension of the definition falls to be determined. Threat of divine displeasure numbs the mental faculty; more so of an undeveloped mind and the actions of such person thereafter are not free and according to conscience. Social excommunication is a serious malady and forces the excommunicated to live a hazardous life. The extended meaning given to the word 'force' does not seek to import anything very foreign into the word inasmuch as the two acts which are now included in the definition fit into the essential concept of the word. Merely because the Penal Code confines the meaning of the word to bodily force, in our opinion, cannot justify the acceptance of the contention advanced before us.", "time": { "start_year": 1972, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1972, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1972" }, "meta": { "people": [ "Judges of the Orissa High Court", "Petitioners" ], "places": [ "Orissa", "India" ], "event": "The court upheld the Act's broader definition of force to include divine displeasure and social excommunication.", "tags": [ "Law", "Religion", "Courts" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 11, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 427, 428 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00451-cc6f19e999e6b5829391.webp", "raw\\pages\\00452-52d4a93135049072d069.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Court Defense of Fraud Restriction", "chunk_data": "Similar is our view with regard to the term 'fraud'. The contention that there is vagueness in the term 'misrepresentation' does not impress us. As we have already said, these are not the normal methods adopted for bringing about conversion. Again they are tainted and we see no justification in the contention that they cannot be prohibited. The intention of the law is to regulate conduct and we see nothing wrong with a law which excludes these as not approved conduct.", "time": { "start_year": 1972, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1972, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1972" }, "meta": { "people": [ "Judges of the Orissa High Court" ], "places": [ "Orissa" ], "event": "The court rejected the claim that the Act's definition of fraud was vague and upheld its regulation of deceptive conversion practices.", "tags": [ "Law", "Religion", "Courts" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 12, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 428 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00452-52d4a93135049072d069.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Restriction Under Article 25", "chunk_data": "While we accept that these are sometimes used as methods of proselytizing and may be taken as part of Christian religion, yet the restriction is covered by the limitation subject to which the right is guaranteed under Article 25 (1).", "time": { "start_year": 1972, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1972, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1972" }, "meta": { "people": [ "Judges of the Orissa High Court" ], "places": [ "India" ], "event": "The court held that restrictions on force and fraud in proselytizing were permissible under Article 25(1).", "tags": [ "Law", "Religion", "Constitution" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 13, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 428 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00452-52d4a93135049072d069.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Challenge to Inducement Definition", "chunk_data": "We shall now deal with the argument regarding the definition of 'inducement'. The attack is mainly on the ground that it is too widely stated and even invoking the blessings of the Lord or to say that 'by His grace your soul shall be elevated' may come within the mischief of the term. Learned Government Advocate while agreeing that even holding out that an intangible benefit is to come may answer the definition, contends that the intention of the Legislature is not to transcend the ordinary concept of the term. We are of the view that the definition is capable of covering some of the methods of proselytising and though the concept of inducement can be a matter referable to morality, the wide definition is indeed open to reasonable objection on the ground that it surpasses the field of morality...", "time": { "start_year": 1972, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1972, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1972" }, "meta": { "people": [ "Judges of the Orissa High Court", "Government Advocate" ], "places": [ "Orissa" ], "event": "The court found the Act's broad definition of inducement open to reasonable objection because it could encompass religious proselytizing beyond the field of morality.", "tags": [ "Law", "Religion", "Courts" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 14, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 428 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00452-52d4a93135049072d069.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Conclusions on Religious Propagation", "chunk_data": "12. Our conclusions, therefore, are:\n\n(1) Article 25 (1) guarantees propagation of religion and conversion is a part of the Christian religion.", "time": { "start_year": 1972, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1972, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1972" }, "meta": { "people": [ "Judges of the Orissa High Court" ], "places": [ "India" ], "event": "The court concluded that Article 25(1) guarantees propagation of religion and that conversion forms part of Christian religion.", "tags": [ "Constitution", "Religion", "Christianity" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 15, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 428 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00452-52d4a93135049072d069.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Conclusions on Force and Fraud", "chunk_data": "(2) Prohibition of conversion by 'force' or by 'fraud' as defined by the Act would be covered by the limitation subject to which the right is guaranteed under Article 25 (1).", "time": { "start_year": 1972, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1972, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1972" }, "meta": { "people": [ "Judges of the Orissa High Court" ], "places": [ "India" ], "event": "The court concluded that restrictions on conversion by force or fraud were permitted under Article 25(1).", "tags": [ "Constitution", "Law", "Religion" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 16, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 428 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00452-52d4a93135049072d069.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Inducement Definition Held Vague", "chunk_data": "(3) The definition of the term 'inducement' is vague and many proselytizing activities may be covered by the definition and the restriction in Article 25 (1) cannot be said to cover the wide definition.", "time": { "start_year": 1972, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1972, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1972" }, "meta": { "people": [ "Judges of the Orissa High Court" ], "places": [ "India" ], "event": "The court held that the definition of inducement was vague and extended beyond the permissible restriction under Article 25(1).", "tags": [ "Constitution", "Law", "Religion" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 17, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 428 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00452-52d4a93135049072d069.webp" ], "chunk_title": "State Legislature Lacked Power", "chunk_data": "(4) The State Legislature has no power to enact the impugned legislation which in pith and substance is a law relating to religion. Entry No. 1 of either List II or List III does not authorise the impugned legislation.\n\n(5) Entry 97 of List I applies.", "time": { "start_year": 1972, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1972, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1972" }, "meta": { "people": [ "Judges of the Orissa High Court" ], "places": [ "Orissa", "India" ], "event": "The court ruled that the State Legislature lacked authority to enact the legislation because it substantially concerned religion and fell under Entry 97 of List I.", "tags": [ "Constitution", "Law", "Politics" ] } }, { "chunk_index": 18, "chapter_name": "1972. High Court Judgement on the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act of 1968", "page_numbers": [ 428 ], "image_paths": [ "raw\\pages\\00452-52d4a93135049072d069.webp" ], "chunk_title": "Act Declared Ultra Vires", "chunk_data": "On the conclusions, each of these three applications must succeed. We declare that the Act is ultra vires the Constitution and direct the issue of a writ of mandamus to the opposite party—State Government not to give effect to the Act. The four criminal cases pending before the Magistrate at Gunupur are hereby quashed. We make no order as to costs.\n\n(Sd.) R. N. Misra", "time": { "start_year": 1972, "start_month": null, "start_date": null, "end_year": 1972, "end_month": null, "end_date": null, "time_display": "1972" }, "meta": { "people": [ "R. N. Misra", "Magistrate at Gunupur" ], "places": [ "Gunupur", "Orissa" ], "event": "The Orissa High Court declared the Act unconstitutional, ordered the State Government not to enforce it, and quashed four pending criminal cases.", "tags": [ "Law", "Courts", "Justice" ] } } ] }