Supreme Court Seeks States’ Responses on Pleas to Stay Anti-Conversion Laws, Amid Concerns Over Growing Curbs on Religious Freedom
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court on September 16 directed multiple States to file their responses to applications seeking a stay on laws governing religious conversions. A Division bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing a batch of petitions questioning the constitutionality of anti-conversion laws enacted by Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka. The Court granted four weeks’ time to the States to respond and listed the matter for hearing after six weeks.
Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, appearing for Citizens for Justice and Peace, urged the Court to expedite the hearing, citing that several States were amending their laws to make them even more stringent. He argued that although these legislations are titled “Freedom of Religion Acts,” they, in practice, restrict the religious freedoms of minorities and target interfaith marriages and conversions. Singh highlighted that Uttar Pradesh recently amended its law to increase the punishment for conversion through marriage to a minimum of 20 years, extendable to life imprisonment. The amendment, he said, also imposes stricter bail conditions similar to those in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and permits third parties to lodge complaints, resulting in harassment of individuals in interfaith relationships and routine religious observances.
Singh informed the bench that he had filed an application seeking a stay on the impugned legislations. Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the National Federation of Indian Women, said her client had submitted a similar plea. The Court was also apprised that the Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh High Courts had stayed certain provisions of their respective anti-conversion laws in 2021, which are now under challenge before the Supreme Court.
The bench directed Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the respondent States, to submit replies to the stay applications. Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, Sanjay Hegde, M.R. Shamshad, and Sanjay Parikh also appeared on behalf of other petitioners opposing the laws. Advocates Srishti Agnihotri and Ruchira Goel were appointed as nodal counsels for the petitioners and respondents respectively to coordinate the preparation of case compilations.
The bench further separated a Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya, which sought a pan-India law criminalising religious conversions by coercion or deceit. When Upadhyaya reiterated his plea for central legislation, Chief Justice Gavai asked, “Who will decide what is a deceitful conversion?”
The petitions before the Court challenge the constitutional validity of various State legislations penalising unlawful conversions. The matter first reached the apex court in January 2020 when a bench headed by then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha issued notice in the case. Later, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind sought transfer of 21 similar petitions pending before six High Courts—Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh—to the Supreme Court. Among these, the Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh High Courts have partially stayed certain provisions of their respective Freedom of Religion Acts.
Case Title: Citizens for Justice and Peace v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,
Case No.: W.P. (Crl) No. 428/2020 and connected matters.
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
