The Supreme Court is already dealing with several similar petitions that question the validity of religious conversion laws in other states. All these matters will now be heard together on May 13.
New Delhi: 2nd May: The Supreme Court of India has agreed to hear a petition that challenges the constitutional validity of the amended Uttar Pradesh law on unlawful religious conversion, introduced in 2024.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan considered the arguments made by senior advocate S Muralidhar.
He told the court that certain sections of the amended law were “vague and overly broad” and that “this ambiguity infringed upon free speech and religious propagation.”
However, the Chief Justice did not issue a formal notice on the petition at this stage. He stated that the matter would be taken up for hearing along with other pending cases on May 13.
The public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed by Roop Rekha Verma, a social activist from Lucknow, and others. The petition, submitted through advocate Purnima Krishna, challenges the 2024 amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act.
According to the petitioners, the amended law violates the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Freedom of Speech), 21 (Right to Life and Liberty), and 25 (Freedom of Religion) of the Indian Constitution.
The plea states that Sections 2 and 3 of the Act are “vague, overly broad, and lack clear standards,” which makes it hard to understand what exactly qualifies as a legal offense.
The petitioners argue that unclear and broadly worded provisions in the law could lead to misuse by authorities.
They further add that:
“This ambiguity infringes upon free speech and religious propagation, enabling arbitrary enforcement and discriminatory application. Penal laws must be precise; vague provisions violate constitutional principles by granting excessive discretion to authorities, failing to provide reasonable notice, and risking wrongful prosecution of innocent individuals.”
The plea warns that such vague language in law “opens the door to arbitrary enforcement and discriminatory practices, especially against individuals seeking to practice or propagate their faith.”
It emphasizes that “Penal laws must be defined with precision to prevent misuse by authorities and avoid the wrongful prosecution of innocent citizens.”
The petition argues that the 2024 amendment has made the law even more problematic by allowing more categories of people to file complaints without proper checks and balances.
It says:
“The law presumes malintent behind all religious conversions and views adult individuals with suspicion, thereby reducing them to subjects whose personal decisions must be validated by the state.”
Additionally, it challenges the harsh punishments prescribed under the law:
“The government, by assuming the role of protector of religious identities, encroaches on the individual’s right to choose their faith.”
The petition points out that there are no proper safeguards in place to protect innocent individuals from being dragged into long legal battles:
“The lack of procedural safeguards… subjects the accused and their families to prolonged legal battles, financial burdens, and social stigma, despite no substantive evidence of wrongdoing.”
“Such an approach disregards the necessity for criminal laws to be clear, precise, and narrowly tailored to prevent wrongful prosecution.”
The petition also criticizes Section 5 of the law, saying it unfairly assumes that all women are vulnerable to forced or illegal conversions.
It says this section supports outdated and harmful ideas about women:
“It is wrongly assumed all women, regardless of their background, are vulnerable to illegal conversions, reinforcing harmful stereotypes undermining their autonomy.”
The plea further argues that the law goes against a basic principle of criminal justice—presumption of innocence.
Instead, it unfairly shifts the burden of proof onto the accused:
“This gender-based presumption contradicts constitutional principles. Furthermore, the Act erodes the fundamental presumption of innocence by imposing a reverse burden of proof, unfairly shifting the onus onto the accused and increasing the risk of wrongful convictions, thereby violating procedural fairness in criminal law.”
The Supreme Court is already dealing with several similar petitions that question the validity of religious conversion laws in other states. All these matters will now be heard together on May 13.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
