The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by three accused persons in a religious conversion case originating from Sri Karanpur, Sri Ganganagar district, ruling that sufficient prima facie grounds exist for the trial to proceed. The bench's order reaffirms the scope of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025 and clarifies what constitutes a lawful exercise of religious rights under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Background of the Case

The case traces back to an FIR registered on 19 December 2025 at Sri Karanpur police station under Sections 3/5 of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025, Section 14(A) of the Foreigners Act, and Section 223(B) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Complainant Sharad Gumbar alleged that certain individuals, including foreign nationals, were attempting to convert people to another religion by making objectionable remarks about Hindu deities and engaging in alleged supernatural activities. Following a police investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the three accused.

Arguments Before the Court

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the accused had merely conducted religious prayers in small groups twice a week, read the Bible, and imparted religious teachings — and that no evidence existed showing they had induced, coerced, or provided misleading information to anyone with the intent of facilitating a religious conversion. The defence also flagged what it described as a legal error: the trial court's cognisance order cited 'Section 3/25' of the Act, even though no such provision exists in the legislation.

Key Observations by Justice Ashok Kumar Jain

A single-judge bench led by Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that the material submitted by police establishes a prima facie basis for the alleged offences, and that at the stage of taking cognisance, the court need only determine whether a prima facie case exists — not adjudicate guilt. The bench noted that the 2025 Act prohibits religious conversion carried out through misrepresentation, misinformation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, online solicitation, marriage or under the pretext of marriage, or other fraudulent means. Critically, the court clarified that the law does not prohibit religious conversion entirely — it criminalises only those conversions effected through the specific means listed under Section 3.

On the question of Article 25, the bench acknowledged that every person enjoys freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion, but noted that these rights are expressly subject to considerations of public order, morality, and health.

The Clerical Error Argument

Regarding the reference to 'Section 3/25' in the trial court's cognisance order, the bench treated it as a typographical or clerical error and directed that it be read as 'Section 3/5.' The court held that such an error alone could not constitute sufficient grounds to allow the revision petition, effectively closing this procedural objection.

What Happens Next

With the revision petition dismissed, the matter will proceed before the trial court. The bench also clarified that the accused are at liberty to file an application for discharge before the trial court under Section 250 of the BNS, preserving their right to challenge the proceedings at the appropriate stage. The case is being watched as one of the early judicial tests of Rajasthan's 2025 anti-conversion law, and how trial courts interpret 'unlawful' conversion under it could set important precedents going forward.