Yogi’s anti-Muslim law. The Supreme Court declines to stay the provisions of an Uttar Pradesh Ordinance and a Uttarakhand law, brought to checking unlawful religious conversions for inter-faith marriages.
A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde agreed to examine the validity of legislations, ‘The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Of Religion Ordinance, 2020’ and the ‘Uttarakhand Freedom Of Religion Act, 2018’, and issued notice to the two state governments. The top court has sought response within four weeks.
The counsel petitioners – Vishal Thakre and others, and NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace – during the hearing stressed for a stay on these ‘love jihad’ laws and termed the provisions as “oppressive” and “obnoxious”.
The bench also comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian replied that it would have been ideal if the petitioners had moved the respective High Courts instead of coming to the apex court. The Chief Justice said the challenge to the law is already pending in High Courts and asked the petitioners to go there. “We are not saying you have a bad case, but approach the High Court in first instance, instead of coming here”, observed the bench.
Senior advocate C.U. Singh, representing one of the petitioners, submitted that it is obnoxious to put burden of proof on the married couple to establish that the motivation for the marriage is not conversion. Singh cited that several incidents have come on record where mobs have disrupted inter-faith marriages and also cited the severe punishment under these laws. Another counsel for a petitioner cited that similar legislation is on the way in Madhya Pradesh and Haryana.
Singh alleged that several innocent persons had been arrested based on UP Ordinance against ‘love jihad’. He cited that the offence under this law has a sentence of up to 10 years and it is also a non-bailable offence. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the Allahabad High Court is already seized of the matter.
The bench observed that the petitioners were asking for a relief which we cannot be entertained under Article 32. “Whether a provision is arbitrary or oppressive needs to be seen. This is the problem when you come directly to the Supreme Court”, said the Chief Justice.
The bench said it would hear arguments of the petitioners against the law and then decided to issue notice rather than staying the laws on Wednesday. The top court will hear the matter after four weeks.
One of the pleas moved by two advocates – Vishal Thakre and Abhay Singh Yadav – and a law researcher Pranvesh, states that the ordinance disturbs the basic structure of the Constitution. “The most important issue was whether the Parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution”, said the plea.
The petitioners contended that Parliament has no power to amend the fundamental rights, and if this ordinance is implemented it will harm the public at large and will create a chaotic situation in the society.
The plea said: “It is also pertinent to mention herein that the ordinance is passed by the State Government/s of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand is against the provisions Special Marriage Act, 1954 and it will create fear in the society who is/are not part of Love Jihad they can be falsely implicated in the ordinance.”
The petitioners contended they are aggrieved by the ordinance passed by the state government and prayed before the top court that the law passed by Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand should be declared ultra-vires and null and void, as it disturbs the basic structure of the Constitution and also it’s against public policy and society at large.
“This ordinance can become a potent tool in the hands of bad elements of the society to use this ordinance to falsely implicate anyone in this ordinance and there are probabilities of falsely implicating persons who are not involved in any such acts and it will be a grave injustice if this ordinance is passed,” said the plea.
Senior advocate C.U. Singh, representing one of the petitioners, submitted that it is obnoxious to put the burden of proof on the married couple to establish that the motivation for the marriage is not conversion. Singh cited that several incidents have come on record where mobs have disrupted inter-faith marriages and also cited the severe punishment under these laws.
Another counsel for a petitioner cited that similar legislation is on the way in Madhya Pradesh and Haryana.
The bench also comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian said it would hear arguments of the petitioners against the law and then decided to issue notice rather than staying the laws on Wednesday.
The top court will hear the matter after four weeks.
The Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind moved the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Uttar Pradesh government’s Ordinance promulgated to curb incidents of “Love Jihad”.
The Muslim clerics’ body, in an impleadment application in the PIL filed by Vishal Thakre, raised the issue of fundamental rights of the Muslim youth, who are being targeted through this Ordinance and contended it is being used to demonise them.
The plea said the Ordinance is unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution.
“Ordinance attempts to regulate a personal decision of each human being by encroaching upon an individual’s choice to convert to a religion of his/her choice. It is submitted that scrutiny by the state of such a personal decision is a grave assault on personal liberty of an individual and is violative of Article 21,” said the plea.
The plea said that apart from the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 and the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, Himachal Pradesh (Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019) has also enacted similar legislation. Similar legislation is in Madhya Pradesh where the Cabinet cleared the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Bill 2020.
“Ordinance seeks to address the mischief of forcible conversion, however, it provides that reconversion to a person’s previous religion is not illegal, even if it is vitiated by fraud, force, allurement, misrepresentation and so on”, said the Muslim body.
The organisation has argued that the Ordinance reverses the rule of burden of proof in criminal law. “It is submitted that burden of proof in criminal cases is on the prosecution, and the presumption is that a person accused of committing an offence is innocent until proven guilty. However, the Impugned Ordinance proceeds on the presumption that each religious conversion is illegal,” said the plea.
The application, filed through advocate Ejaz Maqbool, contended that the Ordinance made it a criminal offence to convert a person by offering him or her an “allurement”, which is very broadly defined, for example including the gifting of a book containing teachings of Islam.
“It is submitted that obligation to seek permission for conversion two months in advance is fundamentally arbitrary and a violation of the right to privacy,” said the organisation. (IANS)