Today(13th August), the Allahabad High Court rejected the bail plea of a person accused of forcibly converting a girl to Islam and sexually exploiting her, stating that religious freedom does not include the right to convert others. The court emphasized that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, aims to uphold secularism and social harmony in India.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court made a ruling that emphasizes the limits of religious freedom in India. Today(on 13th August), the court observed that while religious freedom is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, it does not extend to the collective right to convert others. This observation came as the court rejected the bail plea of an individual accused of forcibly converting a girl to Islam and sexually exploiting her.
Upholding the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021
The court emphasized the importance of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, in safeguarding religious freedom for all citizens and maintaining social harmony in India. According to the court, the primary objective of this Act is to “guarantee religious freedom to all individuals” and uphold “the spirit of secularism in India.” This Act, therefore, plays a crucial role in ensuring that no individual is coerced into converting their religion against their will.
Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, who presided over the case, elaborated on the distinction between individual rights and collective rights within the context of religious freedom. The Constitution grants every citizen the right to “profess, practice, and propagate their religion.” However, Justice Agarwal clarified that this personal right to religious freedom “does not translate into a collective right to convert others.” This distinction is vital because religious freedom must be equally respected for both the individual seeking to convert and the individual being targeted for conversion.
Case Background: Accusations and Allegations
The case involved a petitioner named Azeem, who faced serious accusations of coercing a girl into accepting Islam and sexually exploiting her. The charges against him included violations under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
Azeem, in his defense, argued that the accusations were false and that the girl in question had willingly left her home to be with him. He further claimed that she had confirmed their marriage in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in the related case.
Contradictory Claims and Government Opposition
However, the government’s lawyer presented a starkly different narrative. The opposition to Azeem’s bail highlighted a statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, where the girl mentioned being pressured to convert to Islam. She also described a marriage ceremony that occurred without her conversion.
The court took note of these contradictory statements and carefully examined the evidence presented. It was revealed that the informant had clearly stated in her Section 164 CrPC statement that Azeem and his family had forced her to convert to Islam. She was also coerced into witnessing the sacrifice of animals on Bakrid and was made to prepare and consume non-vegetarian food, which she found objectionable.
Allegations of Captivity and Forced Rituals
The court further highlighted that the petitioner allegedly held the girl captive, and his family members compelled her to perform Islamic rituals that she did not consent to. This, according to the court, was a clear violation of her religious freedom.
In her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, the girl maintained the allegations made in the First Information Report (FIR). The court noted the consistency of her statements and found no substantial evidence from the petitioner to refute these claims. Notably, the petitioner failed to provide any material proof that an application was filed under Section 8 of the 2021 Act to convert the girl to Islam before their marriage/nikah, as alleged.
After thoroughly considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Allahabad High Court dismissed Azeem’s bail application. The court concluded that there was a prima facie violation of Sections 3 and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, which is punishable under Section 5 of the same Act.
