“When the State begins to fear faith, it is not religion that is in danger-it is freedom itself.”
THE recent closure of a Christian-run school in Rajasthan, St. Paul Secondary School located in Patela village, in the Dungarpur district – impacting more than 300 children – is not merely an administrative decision. This is located in the tribal belt in southern Rajasthan.
This is not the defence of a school. It is the defence of an idea – the idea that India belongs equally to all who live in it. If that idea is allowed to fracture under the weight of majoritarian pressure, then what remains is not a Republic, but a hierarchy of belonging.
The justification offered follows a now-familiar script. Allegations surfaced that children were being “lured” or “tempted” into Christianity, that prayer practices amounted to coercion, and that the presence of Christian teaching disrupted communal balance. These claims, amplified through sections of the media and supported by pressure from radical Hindutva groups, were sufficient to trigger decisive state action. The school’s recognition was revoked, its functioning brought to an abrupt halt, and over 300 children were forced to relocate, their education disrupted overnight. It is a moment that lays bare a deeper and more troubling constitutional crisis: the steady erosion of religious freedom under the guise of regulation and “religious harmony.”
The human cost is immediate and undeniable. Students, many from modest and vulnerable backgrounds, have been uprooted from a stable learning environment. Parents now face the anxiety of securing new admissions, often at higher cost or with logistical difficulty. Teachers and staff are left in uncertainty. An institution that likely took years, even decades, to build has been dismantled in a matter of days. Yet, even this tangible disruption is only the surface of a far more serious constitutional concern.
This incident must be understood in the context of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2025, a law that has introduced sweeping restrictions under the stated objective of preventing forced conversions. The legislation criminalises conversion through “allurement,” “coercion,” or “misrepresentation,” and imposes stringent penalties. What renders the law particularly troubling is not merely its severity, but its vagueness. The term “allurement” is left open-ended, capable of encompassing anything from charitable work and educational access to voluntary participation in religious activities. In such a legal environment, the line between legitimate religious expression and criminal conduct becomes dangerously blurred.
The consequences are predictable. Laws framed in such ambiguous language rarely remain neutral in their application. Instead, they lend themselves to selective enforcement, often driven by ideological pressures rather than objective evidence. In Rajasthan, as in several other states with similar laws, accusations of conversion have increasingly become tools of intimidation. The burden of proof effectively shifts onto the accused, and the mere allegation of wrongdoing can trigger legal and administrative consequences severe enough to destroy institutions, regardless of whether any offence is ultimately established.
This raises an unavoidable question: where does this leave the Constitution? The Indian Constitution is neither silent nor ambiguous on matters of religious freedom. Article 25 guarantees every individual the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. This right is not ornamental; it is fundamental. It reflects the vision of a plural India where belief, expression, and identity coexist without coercion or fear. Alongside it, Article 26 affirms the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs, and Article 30(1) grants minorities the explicit right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. These provisions were not granted lightly. They were crafted with historical consciousness, intended to protect minorities from precisely the kind of majoritarian pressure that appears to be at play today.
Yet, in the case of this Rajasthan school, these constitutional guarantees seem to have been subordinated to suspicion and expediency. The State appears to have acted not on the basis of established facts, but in response to allegations that were politically amplified and socially charged. The question is not whether wrongdoing should be investigated -of course it should – but whether such investigation took place in a manner consistent with the rule of law.
The principles of natural justice demand that any institution accused of misconduct be given a fair hearing, that evidence be examined, and that decisions be reasoned and transparent. If recognition was revoked without due process, without a meaningful opportunity for the institution to defend itself, then the action is not merely harsh; it is unconstitutional. Administrative power, when exercised without procedural fairness, ceases to be governance and becomes coercion.
The legal justification often invoked in such cases draws from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rev. Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1977). In that case, the Court upheld anti-conversion laws by holding that the right to “propagate” religion does not include the right to convert another person by force or fraud. However, this judgment has, over time, been stretched far beyond its original scope. It did not criminalise voluntary conversion. It did not prohibit religious education. It did not authorise the State to shut down institutions on the basis of unproven allegations. Yet, in contemporary practice, it is repeatedly used to legitimise actions that go well beyond preventing coercion, entering instead into the realm of suppressing legitimate religious and educational activity.
What we are witnessing, therefore, is not the enforcement of law in its true sense, but the transformation of law into an instrument of control. The language of “conversion” has become a powerful political tool, capable of mobilising sentiment, justifying intervention, and silencing dissent. Once such an allegation is made, the presumption of innocence is effectively reversed. Institutions are forced onto the defensive, their legitimacy questioned, their existence made precarious.
In this climate, the closure of a school is not an isolated administrative event. It is part of a broader pattern in which minority institutions are placed under constant scrutiny, their activities interpreted through a lens of suspicion. The cumulative effect is a chilling one. Schools begin to self-censor, to dilute their identity, to avoid even the appearance of religious expression. The constitutional promise of diversity is quietly eroded, replaced by a homogenising pressure that leaves little room for difference.
And yet, amid all the legal arguments and political analysis, the most immediate victims remain the children. Education is meant to provide continuity, stability, and opportunity. To disrupt the education of over 300 students in the name of protecting them from alleged influence is a contradiction that borders on cruelty. If there were genuine concerns, they should have been addressed through measured inquiry and proportionate action. Instead, the response appears to have been abrupt and sweeping, with little regard for the human consequences.
This is where the moral dimension of the issue becomes unavoidable. A democracy is not judged by how it treats its majority, but by how it safeguards its minorities. The Constitution is not merely a legal document; it is a moral commitment to justice, equality, and pluralism. When institutions are targeted, when allegations replace evidence, and when fear begins to shape public life, that commitment is called into question.
India today stands at a crossroads. The path it chooses will determine whether constitutional rights remain meaningful or become conditional. The closure of this school is a warning signal. It tells us that the line between law and intimidation is becoming increasingly blurred, that the safeguards meant to protect minorities are weakening, and that the idea of India as a plural and inclusive republic is under strain.
What is needed now is not ambiguity, but clarity. The courts must examine such actions with urgency and rigour, ensuring that fundamental rights are not sacrificed at the altar of political expediency. The State must reaffirm its commitment to due process and constitutional principles. And civil society must resist the normalisation of such incidents, recognising them not as isolated events, but as part of a larger trajectory.
For when a classroom is shut down in the name of ideology, it is not just an institution that is lost. It is the fragile promise of a republic that is diminished. If a school can be shut down on accusation, if a faith can be criminalised by suggestion, and if children can be displaced in the name of “harmony,” then what stands eroded is not merely a minority right -it is the Constitution itself. And a constitution that bends to intimidation does not protect a nation; it betrays 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
