The Supreme Court has raised serious questions over key clauses of the Uttar Pradesh anti-conversion law, highlighting excessive state involvement and stringent procedures that burden individuals seeking to adopt a new faith.
The Supreme Court scrutinized various important aspects of the anti-conversion law established by the Uttar Pradesh government, known as the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021.
A bench led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala characterized the law as imposing an onerous process for individuals wishing to change their religion, necessitating both pre- and post-conversion declarations to authorities.
The bench highlighted the conspicuous nature of government involvement and excessive interference in the religious conversion process.
It also expressed concern over the statutory requirement to publicly disclose the personal details of individuals who convert, suggesting that this may need a more thorough examination to determine its compatibility with constitutional privacy rights.
Additionally, the court questioned a provision that mandates a District Magistrate to initiate a police inquiry for every case of intended religious conversion.
While criticizing the stringent procedures surrounding religious conversion in the state, the Supreme Court reminded the Uttar Pradesh government that India is a secular nation. Article 25 of the Constitution, as previously interpreted by the court, guarantees the right to “freely profess, practice and propagate any religion.”
This includes the right to share one’s faith through the explanation of its principles, but not the right to convert others through coercion, deceit, force, or incentives.
The bench stated in a recent judgment,
“As discussed earlier, the constitutional validity of the provisions of the U.P. Conversion Act does not fall for our consideration in the instant case. Nonetheless, we can’t help but observe that the provisions of the said Act pertaining to the pre and post-conversion declaration seem to introduce a very onerous procedure to be followed by an individual seeking to adopt a faith other than the one he professes. The involvement and interference of the State authorities in the conversion procedure is also conspicuous, with the District Magistrate having been legally obliged to direct a police enquiry in each case of intended religious conversion,”
The court was addressing a series of petitions related to five criminal cases initiated by the Uttar Pradesh Police under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the anti-conversion law.
One case, filed by a member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), involved 35 named individuals and 20 unidentified accused and related to an alleged mass religious conversion event at the Evangelical Church of India in Fatehpur’s Hariharganj.
Another case implicated Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal, the Vice-Chancellor of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS). Ultimately, the court dismissed all five FIRs.
In its focus on the stringent procedures for religious conversion in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court referenced the “preamble and the secular nature of the Indian Constitution.”
The bench noted,
“In the preamble to the Constitution of India the words ‘SOCIALIST SECULAR’ were inserted by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. The secular nature of India is an intrinsic part of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution, as held in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1973 SC 1461. As laid down in the Preamble, the People of India have resolved to secure to all its citizens liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, apart from Justice, social, economic and political; Equality of status and of opportunity and to promote among them all fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual, and the unity and integrity of the Nation,”
The court further emphasized that individuals in India possess the right to propagate their religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court asserted,
“Subject to the restrictions which Article 25 imposes, every person has a fundamental right under our Constitution, not merely to entertain such religious belief as may be approved of by his judgment or conscience, but to exhibit his belief and ideas in such overt acts, as are enjoined or sanctioned by his religion and further to propagate his religious views for his edification of others,”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
