Despite dozens of FIRs under Uttarakhand’s anti-conversion law, court data shows a striking gap between arrests and outcomes. Why have trials collapsed, witnesses turned hostile, and convictions remained elusive? Inside the courtroom reality behind the law.
Gaps in Uttarakhand Anti-Conversion cases flagged
Dehradun: Nearly seven years after Uttarakhand introduced a law to curb “forced religious conversions”, court records indicate that the legislation has struggled to translate police action into convictions. An analysis of cases registered under the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act (UFRA) shows that despite dozens of FIRs, not a single case that went to full trial has ended in conviction.
The UFRA was enacted in 2018 by the BJP-led Uttarakhand government to prevent conversions allegedly carried out through force, fraud, inducement or coercion. The law mandates prior permission for religious conversion, places the burden of proof on the accused, and prescribes jail terms and fines for violations. It was later strengthened to include stricter penalties.
UP: Conspiracy of illegal conversion further unfolded, many secrets out; Details here
According to court records accessed through Right to Information (RTI) applications, Uttarakhand Police have registered 62 cases under the UFRA since the law came into force. Records for 51 cases across 13 districts show that as of September 2025, only five cases progressed to full trial. All five of those trials ended in acquittals.
Judicial orders reveal recurring shortcomings in investigations and prosecution. In the five full trials, courts ruled that the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the offence particularly coercion, inducement or fraudulent intent.
In at least seven cases, proceedings were dismissed midway because complainants turned hostile, evidence could not be corroborated, or allegations collapsed during cross-examination. Courts also flagged contradictions in witness statements and procedural lapses by investigating officers.
A key pattern noted by judges was the presence of consensual relationships between adults, which undermined claims of forced conversion.
Of the remaining 39 cases where status details are available, nearly three-fourths of the accused are out on bail. Eleven accused secured bail from the Uttarakhand High Court, while one obtained relief from the Supreme Court.
In three cases, bail was denied, hearings are pending in five, and in two cases, the accused approached the High Court seeking a stay on proceedings, with the state granted time to respond. Bail orders often cited consensual relationships, lack of prima facie evidence, delayed complaints, or inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
While the law has enabled arrests and prosecutions, the court outcomes suggest a gap between enforcement and evidentiary standards required for conviction. Legal experts point out that proving “force” or “inducement” becomes difficult when adult consent is evident and material evidence is weak.
The data indicates that the UFRA is facing its toughest test not in policing, but in courtrooms where claims must meet strict legal thresholds. As more cases proceed, the law’s long-term impact will likely depend on whether investigations improve enough to withstand judicial scrutiny.
