Show summary Hide summary
Pune police have acknowledged they applied the new religion law prematurely after registering FIRs that cited the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026 several weeks before it legally took effect. The mistake has prompted officials to strike those provisions from the complaints and raised fresh questions about legal procedure, retroactive punishment and the reputational damage to those accused.
What happened — and why the timing matters
Trinidad and Tobago’s Hindu community reshapes national culture and identity
Maharashtra anti-conversion law invoked against two in Pune before Aug 28: defamation suit filed
Two separate FIRs in early August named the newly passed Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026 among the charges: one filed on August 5 against a man from Uttar Pradesh, and another on August 9 involving a UK national, identified as Pankaj James Devnoor, over an event held on August 7. But the state government’s official Gazette — published later in August — set August 28, 2026 as the date when the law would come into force.
The discrepancy meant the Act was cited in complaints before it was legally operative. Senior police officers have said those specific provisions will be removed from the FIRs while other applicable offences remain under investigation.
Timeline and immediate consequences
- Aug 5 — FIR lodged against the Uttar Pradesh man; allegations include kidnapping, attempted conversion and sexual abuse.
- Aug 7 — Religious programme attended by the UK national, later cited in the Aug 9 FIR.
- Aug 9 — FIR filed at Khadak police station naming Pankaj James Devnoor.
- Aug 17 — State home department issues commencement notification for the Act under Section 1(2).
- Aug 28 — Date declared in the Gazette for the Act to come into force; any references to the law in earlier FIRs are being withdrawn.
Police response and alternative charges
Assistant Commissioner of Police Sachin Hire acknowledged the oversight after officials became aware of the Gazette notification. He said the investigating officers will remove the now‑premature provisions from the FIR involving the UK national. The police also indicated they may consider proceedings under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 or other statutes depending on the probe’s findings.
For the case registered by Phursungi police on August 5, Senior Inspector Amol More stated the allegations related to kidnapping and offences under the POCSO framework will continue to be pursued, even as the religion‑law counts are dropped.
Legal issues raised by the defendants
The UK national’s lawyer argued the state cannot punish a person under a law that was not in force when the alleged conduct took place, invoking the constitutional protection against retrospective criminal liability. He also maintains his client attended a religious service as a guest and denies any conversion activity; anticipatory bail for the accused has already been granted.
Lawyers for the accused have signaled further legal action over reputational harm; one has said a defamation petition is likely to be filed in the Bombay High Court.
Why this matters now
This episode highlights two immediate consequences: first, the legal principle that criminal statutes cannot be applied retroactively; second, the operational gap that can occur between statute enactment, official notifications and front‑line enforcement. For individuals named in FIRs, premature application of a law can trigger civil remedies and complicate investigations. For police, it underlines the need for clearer internal guidance when new statutes are introduced.
Authorities say the corrective steps are underway: removing the premature charges and proceeding only under laws that were in force at the time of the alleged incidents.
