Bombay High Court has recently said that Prohibiting religious activities by taking preventive action under Section 144 of CrPC on persons conducting religious activities on their own property, their fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate religion would be violated . ,According to the case, a Christian couple from Siolim in Goa was accused by the police of forcibly converting people to Christianity. Due to which there is an atmosphere of communal tension in the village, due to this tension any untoward incident may happen in the village. In order to maintain peace and order in the village, the District Magistrate, in December 2022, while taking action under Section 144 of CrPC, banned religious activities. The woman challenged in the High Court the order of the District Magistrate to take action under Section 144 of the CrPC. Hearing the petition filed by the woman, the court said that everyone has the right freely to profess, practice, and establish a religious association. Making the above observations, the court quashed the prohibitory order issued by the District Magistrate against the couple for conducting religious activities at their property. The woman argued that she along with her husband has been organizing religious activities for the last several years. Preaching the teachings of the Bible, the holy religious text of Christianity. She and her husband are followers of Christianity. They have the right to exercise their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Under this right, they have formed religious institutions to propagate their religion and faith. The Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Sonak and Justice Balmiki Manages of the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court while hearing the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution observed that The petitioner and her husband have the right to propagate and practice their religion. if they do so within the limits of the law, especially when they do so within their own private property. the court held that Prohibition of the petitioner and her husband from conducting religious activities within their property by proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. violates their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1),25,26 of the Constitution .The court said that if any complaint comes against the petitioner and her husband then there are other penal laws to take action against him.If no complaint arises against the petitioner and her husband, it is the duty of the State to ensure that every person is allowed to freely practice and propagate his religion. After hearing the case, the court came to the conclusion that In the present case the petitioner and her husband are organizing religious activities and through these events they are involved in the act of forcible conversion by allurement and fraud due to which there is communal tension in the village, it is completely baseless. There is no evidence available on record to infer that the acts of the petitioner and her husband are likely to disturb the public peace and order of the village.
