Justice Rohinton Nariman urges Supreme Court to revisit 1977 Stainislaus judgment, stating propagation includes right to convert under Article 25, ensuring full religious freedom.
Case in NewsSupreme Court must revisit conversion judgment says Nariman as he critiques the 1977 Reverend Stainislaus ruling . |
Discover powerful Latin Maxims and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.
Case Overview
Case Name: Reverend Stainislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977)
The 1977 judgment in Reverend Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh delivered by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, held that the right to propagate religion under Article 25 does not include the right to convert . Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman has called for a correction of this judgment arguing that it narrows the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom .
Step into the world of justice with Courtroom Chronicles
Key Aspects
Justice Nariman highlighted that the Constituent Assembly debates led by KM Munshi, deliberately included the term “propagate” in Article 25 . He stated that :
- “Propagate” must mean the right to persuade others to adopt a faith .
- The 1977 ruling wrongly equated propagation with mere expression .
- Anti-conversion laws across states derive legitimacy from this restrictive reading .
- The judgment ignored the individual’s concomitant right to choose or change religion .
Legal Insights
Justice Nariman anchored his argument in constitutional and international provisions :
- Article 25 of the Constitution – Right to profess, practice and propagate religion (subject to public order, morality, health) .
- Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution –Freedom of speech includes persuading others on matters of faith .
- Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Recognizes freedom to change one’s religion .
- Articles 15, 16, 29(2), 30, and 28 of the Constitution– Ensure secularism, equality and non-discrimination .
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court of India, in Reverend Stainislaus, held that propagation does not cover conversion . Justice Rohinton Nariman urged for a larger bench to revisit and correct this precedent ensuring propagation fully reflects the constitutional vision of religious freedom .
Source – Supreme Court of India
Read also – Constitution of India
The LawGist ensures exam success with quality notes—TPL, Current Affairs, Recent Judgments, and more. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every aspirant’s first choice. Discover more at thelawgist.org.
