_edited.png)
Authored by - Riya Sharma (Intern at Legal Soch Foundation)
Meta description - A temporary stay on criminal proceedings against a Catholic priest was imposed by SC. At the request of the Christian mother, the priest baptised a child. The case poses mainly two questions: first, about the potential misuse of anti-conversion laws in an interfaith context, and second, about the 'conversion' definition. The court highlights intricate understandings to avoid misunderstanding religious practices in India.
Keywords - Religion, Interfaith, Anti-conversion laws, Appeal, Conversion, India, Temporary, Christian, High Court, Supreme Court
In the recent case titled Charles v. State of Gujarat & Anr. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10010 of 2023, the Gujarat Catholic parish priest's criminal case has been temporarily halted by the Supreme Court. Under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act of 2003, the priest was accused of forceful religious conversion.
The infant's Christian mother, who is separated from her Hindu husband, asked the priest to baptise her younger child. The pastor appealed the Gujarat High Court's decision to uphold the FIR that was lodged against him, and the court, presided over by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, heard his plea.
As there was no actual conversion, the provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act were not applicable, as argued by Advocate Ketaki Jha. The child's mother was a Christian, and the child was brought up in a Christian family, and he used to attend church regularly, accompanied by his mother. The court temporarily halted the proceedings based on these arguments, and therefore the court issued a notice.
A kid born to an interfaith couple in 2012 was baptised by the petitioner, a Catholic parish priest. Both parents agreed to the child's baptism, and he was nurtured in a Christian home despite tense marital relations and a divorce. A third party filed an FIR in 2020 against the priest, alleging conversion without permission. As the Gujarat HC refused to quash the FIR, the priest appealed in the SC.
The priest stated that because baptism does not include renouncing one religion and adopting another, it should not be regarded as conversion. He also raised concerns about how anti-conversion laws in India affect interfaith families and religious practices. The priest emphasised the syncretic nature of religious identification in the country and the need for nuanced interpretations of such laws to prevent misuse.
In conclusion, the temporary stay by the SC on the criminal proceedings against the priest shed light on the intricacies surrounding religious conversion and the potential impact of anti-conversion laws on interfaith families. The case highlights the significance of avoiding misrepresentation of laws that could lead to unintended consequences while considering the variety of religious traditions in India.
Follow us on LinkedIn -
Those interested in reading News, can join this group -
Comments