Supreme Court seeks states’ response on pleas against anti-conversion laws

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the stand of several states on petitions challenging their anti-conversion laws and seeking a stay on their operation.

A bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran issued notices to states, making it clear that it would consider the plea for an interim stay after receiving their replies. The states were given four weeks to respond, and petitioners two weeks thereafter to file rejoinders. The matter will be heard after six weeks.

Senior advocate C U Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners, was allowed to amend the petition to reflect the “more draconian” provisions introduced in states such as Uttar Pradesh. Singh argued that the laws are being misused, with third parties filing complaints that cause “huge amounts of harassment” in interfaith marriages and church activities.

Senior advocates Indira Jaising and Vrinda Grover also pressed for interim relief, pointing to laws in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana. Additional Solicitor General K M Natraj, however, opposed the plea for stay, arguing that the petitions were belated.

The bench, meanwhile, de-tagged a separate plea by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay seeking a ban on deceitful religious conversions, with CJI Gavai remarking, “Who will find out whether it is a deceitful conversion?” It also appointed advocate Shrishti as nodal counsel for petitioners and advocate Ruchira for the respondent states.

The petitions, including one filed by Teesta Setalvad’s NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace, challenge the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws enacted by Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka. Rajasthan has also recently passed a similar law.

The Centre has questioned the locus standi of the NGO, accusing it of pursuing political interests and raising funds by exploiting riot victims.

The apex court had in January 2021 agreed to examine the controversial laws, which regulate religious conversions due to interfaith marriages. Uttar Pradesh’s law covers all conversions and prescribes elaborate procedures, while Uttarakhand provides up to two years’ jail for conversions through “force or allurement,” including cash, jobs, or material benefits.

The petitioners argue that these legislations violate Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution by curbing individual liberty and freedom of religion.
(With LiveLaw inputs)