By Bijoy A. Sangma
When the news was reported on July 25, 2025, regarding the arrest of Sisters Preeti Mary (45) and Vandana Francis (50) at Durg Railway Station in Chhattisgarh, I experienced an uneasy feeling in my chest, an impression that something fundamental was disintegrating before our eyes. They were not merely nuns; they were service workers escorting three adult tribal women from Narayanpur to Agra for lawful employment. Their sole ‘crime’, as asserted by activists of Bajrang Dal and acted upon by the Government Railway Police (GRP), was trafficking and attempted religious conversion under Chhattisgarh’s Freedom of Religion Act, 1968, and Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Consent and Intent Questioned
According to official reports, the three women, aged 18 to 19 were promised jobs in nursing or housekeeping at Agra convents, with monthly salaries ranging from Rs 8,000 to Rs 10,000. Their families, including some who had previously converted to Christianity, provided written declarations of informed consent, and documents were submitted to police in Narayanpur on July 26 stating that their daughters had left voluntarily. Despite these precautions, the nuns and their companions were quickly taken into custody, and the women were placed in protective shelter homes.
Faith Versus Law
Legal scholars and civil society have identified this as a quintessential instance of constitutional contradiction. According to Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, citizens possess the right to freely select and practice their religion. As adults, these women had agency, an aspect often overlooked when authorities reacted to accusations from what critics have called self-professed ‘guardians’ of community morals.
Mob Suspicion Over Proof
What makes this incident more concerning than just a procedural mistake is the ongoing bias against religious minorities. Anti-conversion laws, once uncommon, are now present in ten Indian states and were defended by the Supreme Court in Rev. Stanislaus v. Madhya Pradesh, enabling their enforcement even when coercion is suspected. Many of these cases arise from mob suspicion rather than concrete evidence. In this case, allegations reportedly evolved following unverified reports of one of the women being assaulted, claims linked by local media to Bajrang Dal activists. Meanwhile, two others maintained they acted voluntarily.
Protests Across Kerala
The response in Kerala was prompt and unified. On July 29, a gathering comprising nuns, priests, and laypersons assembled in Thrissur under the auspices of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI), led by Archbishop Mar Andrews Thazhath, to denounce what they called mob justice and to call for the immediate release of the nuns. The Chief Minister of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan, attributed the arrest to groups affiliated with Sangh Parivar, notably the Bajrang Dal, accusing them of orchestrating the detention and undermining the constitutional principles of secularism and pluralism. Concurrently, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, the Latin Catholic Council, and other organisations condemned the incident, asserting that it represented an affront to national unity and minority rights, and warning that it’ tarnished India’s international reputation’.
Political Battlelines Drawn
Regarding the political developments, Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and KC Venugopal characterised the incident as part of a ‘systematic persecution of minorities’, accusing the BJP-led state government (Chhattisgarh) of tacitly endorsing violence and misusing legal frameworks for ideological objectives. John Brittas, a CPI(M) MP, condemned the arrests as a ‘blatant misuse of law’, and called for an independent investigation into the complaint and the influence of ‘vigilante groups’ on police actions. Conversely, state (Chhattisgarh) BJP officials maintained that the incident was a ‘misunderstanding’ and committed to providing full legal support to the nuns, while, at the same time, distancing the party from Bajrang Dal, which they acknowledged as an autonomous organization.
Legal Landscape Tightens
This incident must also be viewed within the wider legal framework. Chhattisgarh is reportedly contemplating more stringent legislation concerning conversions, specifically targeting non-governmental organisations accused of channelling foreign funds for covert activities. Critics contend that this measure will further criminalise social service efforts and exacerbate suspicions surrounding interfaith charitable activities involving Dalit, Tribal and Adivasi communities.
Constitution in Question
From a constitutional perspective, the incident prompts critical inquiries concerning due process, evidentiary standards, and state neutrality. When a citizen’s rights, whether religious, bodily, or financial, are superseded solely due to apprehensions about societal perception, the Constitution’s function becomes merely symbolic rather than practical. Our legal framework presumes innocence until proven guilty; however, in this context, the onus appears to be inverted, and innocence must now be established subsequent to arrest.
Christians Under Pressure
The social stakes are considerable. Christians make up approximately 2.3% of India’s population of 1.3 billion, with their efforts primarily directed towards education, healthcare, and tribal upliftment. According to data from the United Christian Forum, there were 4,316 incidents of attacks against Christians between 2014 and 2024. According to Joseph Jude, Vice-President of the Kerala Region Latin Catholic Council (KRLC), and Fr. Jiju George Arakkathara, the General Secretary, said there has been a significant rise to 834 incidents in the year 2024 alone, primarily in states with anti-conversion laws.
Global Eyes Watching
On the international stage, this case undermines India’s reputation as a pluralistic republic dedicated to freedom of belief. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) assures the right to adopt and change faiths without coercion. When our citizens are detained on the basis of group accusations with minimal corroboration, we diminish our credibility in the realm of international human rights discourse.
Nevertheless, political leaders, judicial authorities, and civil society retain mechanisms for action. The judiciary is required to examine evidence, such as written consent, travel documents, and testimonials, and to assess whether the initial grounds for arrest conformed to legal standards. The state bears the responsibility to investigate the influence of Bajrang Dal impartially. Furthermore, political representatives must refrain from exploiting such incidents for partisan advantage.
If this situation is permitted to remain unaddressed, particularly if arrests based on unverified, subsequently altered testimonies become commonplace, we establish a perilous precedent. Presently, it involves two nuns; in the future, it could involve a tribal or dalit educator, a philanthropic worker, or a community organiser. Consequently, all actions and intentions may be viewed with suspicion, and secular principles risk becoming obsolete.
What Justice Demands
What are the requisites of justice? Justice necessitates the release of individuals when evidence indicates the absence of coercion or illegality. It mandates an independent investigation into the origins of the complaint. Moreover, it calls for legal reforms to guarantee that adult agency and consent are not overridden by populist hysteria. Additionally, justice requires political restraint to differentiate between legitimate concerns and ideological persecution.
Above all, it necessitates us to inquire: In whose India are we residing? Is it a nation where suspicion casts its shadow over service? Or one where identity predetermines guilt prior to due process? Alternatively, is it a country where secularism, pluralism, and legal equality continue to possess significance?
A Test of Conscience for India
This is not just the story of two nuns in Chhattisgarh. It acts as a crucial test case for India’s constitutional integrity. It is a timely opportunity, if we choose to take it, to reaffirm that every citizen’s dignity is paramount, that laws should govern society rather than mobs acting on their own rules, and that through diversity, we find strength instead of giving in to fear.
India must not be remembered for trials by mob, nor for faith garments used as evidence of guilt. Instead, we should be remembered for our justice, integrity, and steadfast conviction that dignity, rights, and compassion are unconditional and constitutionally protected.
(Bijoy A. Sangma is a development professional, lawyer, analyst, and commentator on public affairs, constitutional values, public leadership, social justice, and religious freedom, with extensive experience in global leadership roles and contributions to public policy and social transformation.)