3 min readVadodaraAug 5, 2026 05:31 AM IST
First published on: Aug 4, 2026 at 03:38 PM IST
Observing that the constitutional right to propagate religion does not extend to conversions brought about through force, fraud, or coercion, the Gujarat High Court has refused to cancel criminal proceedings against an ASHA worker accused of pressuring her colleagues to embrace Christianity through threats.
Justice M K Thakker on July 31 dismissed a petition filed by Namrata Macwan seeking to set aside an FIR registered against her under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act and the chargesheet arising from allegations that she repeatedly propagated Christianity among subordinate health workers while allegedly threatening adverse consequences at their workplace.
According to the prosecution, Namrata allegedly asked an ASHA facilitator and four ASHA workers to stay back after official meetings, “criticised idol worship, encouraged them to read the Bible, screened Christian religious videos” and later invited them to a programme in Vadodara under the guise of an official health meeting, where Christian sermons and testimonies of converts were delivered. The complainant, the supervisor of the ASHA workers’ unit, alleged that refusal to participate attracted threats related to salary and employment.
Senior advocate Mihir Joshi, appearing for Namrata, argued that she merely exercised her constitutional right under Article 25 to profess and propagate her religion as a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian denomination. He submitted that there was neither any conversion nor even an attempt to convert anyone through force, fraud, or allurement, and therefore the essential ingredients of offences under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act were absent. He questioned the complainant’s locus standi as well as the validity of the prosecution on the ground of sanction.
Rejecting the submissions, the court observed that Article 25 protects religious propagation but not conversions brought about through coercive or fraudulent means. The court reiterated that anti-conversion legislation seeks to prevent exploitation through force, misrepresentation, undue influence, and fraud while safeguarding genuine freedom of conscience, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2021 Durga Yadav case.
‘Attendance does not rule out fraudulent inducement’
Examining the investigation, the court noted that Namrata also “highlighted the perceived benefits of conversion through the experiences narrated by persons present at the Vadodara programme”. It also held that merely because the victims attended the Vadodara programme and “partook of the meal served there would not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that there was no fraudulent inducement in securing their attendance at the said event”.
The court held that it was required only to examine whether the allegations disclosed a cognisable offence and not whether the prosecution would ultimately succeed at trial.
The court also rejected Namrata’s contention that she exercised no authority over the complainant, observing that as a female health worker, she occupied a supervisory position over the ASHA facilitator and other workers.
The court also considered the state’s submission that the district magistrate granted prosecution sanction under section 6 of the Act before the chargesheet was filed.
“The allegations made in the impugned FIR, coupled with the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003,” the high court held.
Gujarat High Court observed that Article 25 of the Constitution protects religious propagation but not conversions brought about through coercive or fraudulent means. (File Photo) 
Share
