Indian faith leaders oppose a Supreme Court petition seeking to label religious conversion as terrorism, calling it premature and misleading.
Newsroom (20/04/2026 Gaudium Press )India’s top court is facing sharp criticism from religious leaders after a petition filed by a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-linked advocate sought to classify religious conversion as a terrorist act, a move described by critics as “deceitful, premature and hasty.”
Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, a former spokesperson for the BJP’s Delhi unit, submitted the petition to the Supreme Court on April 16. The plea comes in the wake of allegations involving sexual abuse and forced religious conversion linked to employees at the Tata Consultancy Services Limited (TCS) office in Nashik, a city in the western state of Maharashtra.
Citing the Nashik case, Upadhyay argued that “organized religious conversion” had “shaken the conscience of citizens throughout the country,” according to a report published by The Hindu on April 17. In his petition, he further claimed that forced or deceitful religious conversions constitute a “systematic conspiracy,” often backed by foreign funding, aimed at altering India’s demographic balance and undermining national unity and security.
He contended that such acts fall within the definition of terrorism under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The petition calls on the Supreme Court to direct both federal and state governments to establish special courts to handle conversion-related cases and to implement stricter measures to curb such practices.
However, the plea has drawn swift opposition from faith leaders and rights advocates, who question both its timing and intent.
Father Cedric Prakash, a Jesuit priest and human rights activist based in Gujarat, expressed strong reservations about the petition, suggesting it may be driven by ulterior motives. “We suspect a deceitful move behind this petition,” he told UCA News on April 20, emphasizing that the Nashik case remains under investigation.
“A probe is underway in the TCS case, and using such an unfortunate incident in a petition is not acceptable at all,” Prakash said. He also noted that India already has sufficient legal mechanisms to address cases involving fraudulent or forced religious conversions, urging the Supreme Court not to entertain the plea.
Concerns about the petition’s implications were echoed by other religious figures. Pastor Joy Mathew, who provides legal assistance to persecuted Christians in Uttar Pradesh, described the filing as both premature and hastily prepared, arguing that it should not be admitted by the court.
Father Babu Joseph, former spokesperson for the Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI), criticized the proposal as disproportionate. “To demand that a change of faith be treated as a terrorist act seems an overkill,” he said.
Joseph further underscored the complexity of religious conversion, noting that such decisions often arise from diverse personal and social contexts that require careful and objective evaluation. He warned against drawing sweeping conclusions without thorough investigation.
Similarly, a Divine Word priest based in New Delhi characterized the petition as “more of a targeted propaganda than anything that truly reflects the reality on the ground,” suggesting it risks inflaming tensions rather than addressing genuine legal concerns.
The controversy unfolds against the backdrop of existing anti-conversion laws in India. Thirteen states—most governed by the BJP—have already enacted legislation imposing strict penalties for illegal religious conversions. These laws remain in force, as the Supreme Court continues to hear petitions challenging their constitutional validity.
So far, the court has not suspended the implementation of these laws, allowing state authorities to proceed with prosecutions under their provisions.
Upadhyay himself has faced scrutiny in the past. Reports indicate that the Supreme Court has previously admonished him for filing frivolous petitions, and he has also been accused of spreading misinformation.
As the debate intensifies, the Supreme Court’s response to the petition is likely to carry significant implications—not only for the legal interpretation of religious conversion in India, but also for the broader discourse on religious freedom, national security, and the limits of state intervention in matters of faith.
- Raju Hasmukh with files from UCA News
Related Images:
