The Gujarat High Court has declined to dismiss criminal proceedings against a state health worker accused of using workplace threats and fraudulent means to pressure subordinate employees into converting to Christianity, ruling that constitutional protections for religious propagation do not cover forced or deceptive conversions.
Justice M K Thakker dismissed a petition filed by Namrata Macwan, an ASHA worker and female health worker, who sought to set aside a First Information Report and subsequent chargesheet filed against her under the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003. The court affirmed that the investigation and charges against Macwan prima facie establish cognizable offences under the state anti-conversion law.
Workplace Coercion Allegations
According to the prosecution, Macwan, a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses denomination, used her supervisory standing over an ASHA facilitator and four ASHA workers to compel their conversion. The complainant, a supervisor of the ASHA workers’ unit, alleged that Macwan routinely detained workers after official meetings to criticize idol worship, promote Bible reading, and show Christian religious videos.
The prosecution further stated that Macwan lured the health workers to an event in Vadodara under the guise of an official health meeting. Attendees were presented with Christian sermons, testimonials from converts, and presentations highlighting the perceived benefits of conversion. The complaint alleged that Macwan threatened workers with adverse employment consequences, including salary withholding and job loss, if they resisted participating.
Defense Arguments And Court Findings
Senior advocate Mihir Joshi, representing Macwan, argued that her actions fell under her constitutional rights under Article 25 to profess and propagate her faith. The defense asserted that no conversion or attempt to convert occurred through force, fraud, or inducement, and questioned the standing of the complainant as well as the validity of the prosecution sanction.
The court rejected these arguments, stating that Article 25 safeguards religious propagation but does not protect conversions secured through coercion, undue influence, or misrepresentation. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2021 Durga Yadav ruling, Justice Thakker noted that anti-conversion statutes are designed to prevent exploitation while preserving genuine freedom of conscience.
Judicial Scope And Prosecution Sanction
Addressing the defense’s claim that attendance and consumption of meals at the Vadodara gathering disproved fraudulent intent, the high court clarified that partaking in food does not negate allegations of deceptive inducement used to secure attendance. The bench also verified that the district magistrate had formally granted prosecution sanction under Section 6 of the Act before law enforcement submitted the chargesheet.
Justice Thakker emphasized that at this stage of proceedings, the court’s role is strictly to evaluate whether the alleged actions constitute a cognizable offence, rather than determining the ultimate outcome of a trial.
