PRAYAGRAJ, May 19 -- The presumption that one religion is superior than another is antithetical to the idea of secularism and the State must maintain a principled equidistance from all religions, the Allahabad high court has observed while refusing to dismiss a case against four people accused of forceful conversion to Christianity. The court, in an order dated May 7 and made public on Saturday, said that while the Constitution gives every citizen the right to freely follow and spread their religion, it does not support forced or fraudulent conversions. "The presumption that one religion is inherently superior to other clearly presupposes the moral and spiritual superiority of one religion over another. Such notion is fundamentally antithetical to the idea of secularism. Indian secularism is rooted in the principle of equal respect for all religions," the bench of justice Vinod Diwakar said. "The State can neither identify with nor favour any religion, but instead must maintain a principled equidistant from all religions and faith," the court said. It was hearing a plea to cancel an FIR against four people accused of trying to convert people to Christianity by offering them money and free medical care. The court refused to cancel the FIR, saying that the charges were serious and valid enough for police investigation. The court also upheld the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021, saying that the primary objective behind enacting the legislation was to prevent exploitation and manipulation. "The primary object of the Act is to prohibit conversions from one religion to another that are carried out through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, fraudulent means, or marriage for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion. By targeting such methods, the law seeks to prevent exploitation and manipulation that could have broader destabilising effects on social harmony, besides disruption of law and order," the court noted. The court cited Article 25 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to religious freedom to highlight that the use of the word "freely" underscores the "voluntary nature of religious belief and expression". However, the bench said, "the Constitution does not endorse forced or fraudulent conversions, nor does it shield coercive or deceptive practices under the guise of religious propagation". It maintained that though Article 25(1) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, this right is expressly subject to public order, morality, and health, which provides a constitutional foundation for regulating religious conversions that are procured through coercion, misrepresentation, or undue influence. The court also looked into a legal issue as to whether a police officer (SHO) can be considered an "aggrieved person" under Section 4 of the 2021 Act. This section generally allows only the victim or close relatives to file a complaint. The bench clarified that the SHO can file such FIRs because the law must be read with the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) provisions that allow the police to act in cognizable offences....