05 December 2022 – The Indian Express

Anti Conversion Laws In India

Has anti-conversion law ever existed in India?

• Particularly in the latter half of the 1930s and 1940s, princely kingdoms ruled by Hindu royal families were the first to pass legislation outlawing religious conversions during the British colonial era.
• While the British were in power, these laws were enacted to safeguard the religious identity of Hindus.
• Such laws were present in a number of princely realms, including Kota, Bikaner, Jodhpur, Raigarh, Patna, Surguja, Udaipur, and Kalahandi.
• Throughout the independent era, anti-conversion laws were proposed in the Indian Parliament, but none of them were ever put into action due to a lack of political support.
• The Union Law Ministry stated in 2015 that while maintaining peace and order is a state duty under the Indian Constitution, no national legislation against coerced and fraudulent conversions may be passed.
• This shows that state governments have the power to enact particular laws.

Which states have laws that now restrict conversions?

• Legislation protecting “Freedom of Religion” has been adopted by state governments over time to outlaw forced, fraudulent, or compelled conversions to other religions.
• Currently, states that promote religious freedom include Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Uttarakhand.
• Most of these laws forbid forced or persuasive conversion to religion.

How are laws against conversion enforced?

• According to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom’s (USCIRF) 2016 and 2018 reports, there were relatively few arrests or prosecutions for breaking the anti-conversion laws.
• However, it was highlighted that these policies created a hostile and occasionally violent environment for religious minorities because they did not require any evidence to back up the charges of misconduct by the accused.
• These laws resulted in intimidation and incarceration of religious minority leaders and followers.
• In the more than month since the UP law was approved, 86 people have been held in 16 cases involving allegations of conversion for love or marriage between Hindus and Muslims. 54 of them, including the primary accuser’s acquaintances and family, were held. Muslims are the primary accused parties in each of these occurrences.

What is the Special Marriage Act?

• The Special Marriage Act of 1954 is a significant legal document that lays the groundwork for inter-caste and inter-religious marriages.
• This statute enables civil partnerships to be accepted as valid by the courts without the requirement of conversion to another religion.
• This act, originally passed in 1872 and subject to various amendments over the years, still carries the protectionist constraints of the Victorian era.

Those who are against this law state:

• According to the legislation, the couple’s information must be “prominently” disseminated for a 30-day warning period in order to solicit objections. This clause, which was intended to prevent potential fraud by one of the parties to a marriage, has proven to be troublesome because people who are against the marriage frequently harass the bridal pair.
• Occasionally, local officials will use the 30-day notice to place strict restrictions on couples.
• No other religious marriage law in India requires notification of the government or acknowledges the possibility of opposition from other parties. This clause informs relatives and other parties of the impending nuptials so they can try to dissuade the couple.
• A member of an undivided Hindu family (including a Buddhist, Sikh, or Jain household) who marries is considered to have “severed” their relationship with their parents under the terms of this Act. Thus, their inheritance rights are rejected.

What is the High Court of Allahabad’s most recent decision on the Special Marriage Act?

• According to a recent decision by the Allahabad High Court, couples are not need to publish a legally required 30-day notice of their desire to marry under the Special Marriage Act.
• The court found that this provision violates both the freedom to marry and the fundamental rights to privacy and liberty.
• The ruling of the High Court does not directly affect how the anti-conversion statute is applied because it only deals with the Special Marriage Act.
• The following issues, however, will only be indirectly impacted by this order:
• The need for conversion, which many people choose to undergo in order to prevent discrimination because of interfaith marriage, is eliminated by the abolition of the 30-day public notice requirement. Since the UP anti-conversion law only applies when one person changes for the purpose of marriage, the SMA technique eliminates the justification for using it.
• The order may be useful to those who have been detained and are attempting to challenge a provision of the recently adopted anti-conversion statute. These individuals might gain from the privacy observation and the right to choose one’s marriage, which are backed by relevant SC case law.

What stance does the judiciary take on laws that prohibit conversion?

Stainislaus’ Case:

• In the Stainislaus ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the anti-conversion laws in Madhya Pradesh and Odisha.
• By prohibiting forced conversions and religious conversions that are “in a manner offensive to the conscience of the society,” the top court stated in its decision that these regulations were designed to prevent issues with public order.
• It was determined that the freedom to profess, practise, and promote religion is not a right protected by Article 25 of the Constitution.
• Everyone has the right to religious freedom, which includes the freedom to proclaim, practise, and disseminate their religion, as stated in Article 25.
• The freedom to disseminate includes the capacity to communicate one’s religious convictions or an explanation of their guiding principles. However, one is not permitted to convert others to their own religion.
• Since it limits “freedom of conscience,” Article 25 is broken by forced conversion.
• The Supreme Court also declared that because conversion is not a fundamental right, it must be governed by the government.

The Hadiya case

• What one wears and eats, one’s views and philosophies, and relationships like marriage and love are some of the core elements of identity.
• The choice of a person’s partners is entirely their own, and neither the state nor the law can place any limitations on this freedom of choice.
• The choice of a life partner, whether someone marries or dates someone else, is considered an element of that person’s “personhood and identity.”

KS Puttuswamy Case

• Autonomy is the ability to make crucial decisions that will affect one’s life.
• There is a “chilling affect” on liberties whenever the state impedes an adult’s ability to freely love and get married.
• Intimacy in marriage exists within a central, impermeable space of solitude.
• The right to choose one’s life partner is an unalienable freedom, and concerns of faith have no influence at all on this right.

 Lata Singh case

• For the country, this is a “crucial transforming phase.”
• The Constitution will only endure if we value the richness and diversity of our cultures.
• Relatives who are displeased about the interfaith couple’s marriage could “cut off social contacts” rather than resorting to violence or intimidation.

What grounds exist for legislation that forbids conversion?

• A committee led by Chief Justice Niyogi of Nagpur found that religious conversions were not “completely voluntary.”
• The forced conversion of faith would involve several offenses, including unlawful confinement (Section 342 IPC), intimidation (Section 506 IPC), kidnapping (Sections 359-369 IPC), assault (Section 352 IPC), and the threat of divine wrath (Section 508 IPC), among others.
• In order to defend human rights, anti-conversion laws forbid fake, fraudulent, or dishonest marital pretenses.
• These laws provide legal remedy to those who were tricked or forced into conversion.

 What defences do the most current anti-conversion laws have?

• The law is criticised for utilising imprecise terminology, such as “undue influence,” “coercion,” and “allurement or marriage,” to establish the grounds for criminalising conversions.
• It can be challenging to determine whether a religious conversion was truly made just for marriage.
• The meaning of these unclear expressions is entirely up to the court.
• Even while this ordinance is not technically unlawful, it could nonetheless be used incorrectly.

Way Ahead:

• Marriage is a personal decision. The ability to select one’s spouse, including the right to marry, is one facet of constitutional liberty.
• The basic right to privacy protects one’s ability to make private decisions.
• Since the SC earlier supported this right, any statute that breaches it must be repealed.
• By preserving the notion that each citizen has the right to make decisions that do not damage them or others, the judiciary can function effectively.
• A detailed examination into the reality of such forced conversions must be conducted in order to support anti-conversion legislation.
• The government can tighten the current rules that protect against coercion and forced conversions if it is proven that these issues exist.
• To avoid abuse, these laws must be precise and explicit.
• Additionally, the state is accountable for promoting and facilitating interfaith and intercaste unions. The SMA ruling by the Allahabad High Court is a constructive development.