Democracies become weaker when fear replaces trust, and when constitutional freedoms exist more in theory than in lived reality
IN a significant legal development from Madhya Pradesh, a court recently acquitted a Christian school caregiver and educator after nearly four years of legal proceedings under the state’s anti-conversion law. The case has reignited discussions around religious freedom, constitutional protections, and the misuse of criminal law against minority communities in the country.
Reports from the ground indicate that the woman managed a school serving more than 350 children while also supporting her own family during challenging personal circumstances. Her legal troubles reportedly began after she assisted in organising a local Christian gathering. Authorities subsequently accused her and a friend of unlawful religious conversion activities, despite what independent observers and legal supporters described as a lack of credible evidence.
Prolonged Pressure
The allegations had consequences far beyond the courtroom. Accounts gathered by citizens committed to communal harmony and constitutional values suggest that the case disrupted the functioning of the school, threatened livelihoods, and subjected families to prolonged emotional and social pressure. For many observers, the case illustrates how criminal accusations themselves can become punitive, even before guilt is established.
Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees every person the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject only to public order, morality, and health. Articles 26 to 28 further protect religious denominations, religious institutions, and freedom from compulsory religious instruction in certain educational settings.
The framers of the Constitution envisioned India not as a monocultural state, but as a civilisation rooted in plurality — where different faiths, beliefs, and traditions could coexist with equal dignity. The right to share one’s faith peacefully is constitutionally protected so long as it does not involve coercion, fraud, or material inducement.
Religious Choice and Criminal Conduct
Yet, anti-conversion laws enacted in several states increasingly blur the distinction between voluntary religious choice and criminal conduct. Critics argue that these laws create suspicion around ordinary religious gatherings, prayer meetings, humanitarian work, and interfaith interaction.
Recent observations by the Supreme Court on forced conversions have further intensified debate. While the court has expressed concern over conversions through coercion or inducement, civil liberties advocates caution that broad interpretations can unintentionally legitimise harassment, vigilante complaints, and selective targeting of minority communities. The challenge lies in protecting genuine freedom of conscience without enabling the criminalisation of peaceful religious expression.
International Law and Freedom of Belief
India is also bound morally and internationally by principles enshrined in global human rights frameworks. Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every person has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, including the freedom to change religion or belief and to manifest it in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.
Similarly, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a signatory, protects freedom of religion and conscience as a fundamental human right.
International human rights principles recognise that faith is deeply personal. Genuine freedom of religion includes not only the right to retain one’s faith, but also the right to question, reinterpret, reject, or embrace another belief system without fear of intimidation or criminalisation.
Presumption of Innocence
A foundational principle of criminal justice is that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The eventual acquittal in this case underscores the importance of evidence-based prosecution and fair judicial scrutiny.
However, independent reports suggest that the process itself often becomes the punishment. Years of investigation, public suspicion, social hostility, and economic disruption can irreparably damage lives even where courts later find insufficient evidence.
Civil rights advocates and legal scholars have repeatedly raised concerns that anti-conversion laws are sometimes enforced selectively, contributing to fear among minority communities and creating a chilling effect on constitutionally protected religious activity.
Equal Accountability
In any democracy governed by the rule of law, accountability cannot stop with the accused alone. Where law-enforcement personnel are found to have acted with bias, enabled intimidation, ignored threats, or selectively enforced the law, they too must face institutional and legal scrutiny.
A state weakens its own moral legitimacy when institutions entrusted with protecting citizens appear to take sides during communal tensions. The law cannot remain credible if its application depends on the religion or social identity of those involved.
Justice must therefore apply equally — to instigators of violence, to mobs, and to officials who fail in their constitutional duty of neutrality and protection.
A Shared Human Foundation
Beyond law and politics lies a deeper ethical question: what kind of society does India aspire to be?
India’s civilisational strength has historically rested on coexistence — on the recognition that multiple cultures, faiths, languages, and philosophies can inhabit the same social space without requiring uniformity. The humane foundation of democracy is not sameness, but dignity amidst difference.
Pluralism is not a threat to national unity; it is one of its conditions. A society secure in itself does not fear prayer, diversity, dialogue, or difference. It protects them.
On a day associated with care, compassion, and human nurturing, this case becomes more than a legal story. It becomes a reminder that justice must be rooted not only in statutes and courtrooms, but also in humanity, fairness, and the equal worth of every person.
Peace cannot survive where justice is selective. The law must protect every citizen equally — and those entrusted to enforce it must never stand above it.
What makes such cases especially troubling is the atmosphere of fear they create far beyond the individuals directly involved. When prayer meetings, acts of service, or expressions of faith become grounds for suspicion, the damage extends into the social fabric itself. Teachers, caregivers, social workers, and minority communities begin functioning under a shadow of uncertainty.
Democracies do not become weaker because citizens practise different faiths; they become weaker when fear replaces trust, and when constitutional freedoms exist more in theory than in lived reality. India’s democratic strength has always depended on its ability to protect difference without criminalising it.
__________________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
