Bombay High Court quashes conversion case, ruling faith promotion is not an insult

The Bombay High Court has quashed a police complaint and chargesheet against four individuals accused of coercing a couple to convert to Christianity, ruling that promoting one's faith does not constitute an insult to another religion.

Delivering the order at the court's Nagpur bench, Justice M W Chandwani held that encouraging or pressuring someone to switch religions does not satisfy the legal threshold for outraging religious feelings. The decision sets aside criminal proceedings initiated earlier this year in Amravati against senior citizen Joseph Khudawant, his son Victor Khudawant, daughter-in-law Elvina Khudawant, and social worker Anant Mankar.

What the prosecution alleged

Police registered the First Information Report in January following a complaint from a Hindu couple. According to investigators, the four accused repeatedly urged the husband and wife to renounce Hinduism and convert to Christianity.

The prosecution submitted that the accused offered material inducements, promising regular monthly cash payments, coverage of their children's school expenses, and the construction of a new house if they consented to the conversion. Authorities charged the group with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings and insult religious beliefs.

The accused approached the High Court seeking to dismiss the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet. They argued that their conduct lacked malicious intent and had never targeted, belittled, or disparaged any faith or community.

Why the High Court dismissed the charges

In his ruling delivered on 6 October, Justice Chandwani observed that the allegations against the applicants failed to establish any deliberate attempt to demean Hinduism or create communal friction.

"The applicants were merely promoting their religion and that does not mean that by doing so, they outraged the religious feelings of any class," the bench stated.

The court added that while the material on record indicated the accused had pressured the couple to adopt Christianity, exerting such persuasion did not mean they insulted or hurt their religious beliefs. Without evidence of an explicit attack on the complainant's faith, the penal provisions invoked by the police could not stand.

The legal timeline

Justice Chandwani also addressed the statutory landscape governing religious conversions in Maharashtra. The events cited in the complaint occurred in 2025, a period when the state had no specific legislation prohibiting conversion by means of financial allurement or material incentive.

Maharashtra has since strengthened its regulatory framework by enacting a dedicated statute to protect freedom of religion and prohibit unlawful conversions, which formally took effect on 28 August 2026. Because criminal law cannot apply new statutory offences retroactively, the bench evaluated the case strictly against standard penal thresholds.

By ensuring that existing criminal provisions are applied only where genuine malice or desecration exists, the High Court reaffirmed that individual liberties and lawful religious discourse remain firmly safeguarded under India's constitutional order.