Categories
Communalism Rule of Law

Anti-conversion law of Uttar Pradesh: a litany of misuse

Since its enactment, this weaponised law, under challenge in the Supreme Court, has resulted in a series of incidents of wrongful arrests and confinement even while section 4, that stipulates only someone directly affected is a complainant, is routinely violated

Four individuals, under arrest since 2021, under sections of the draconian anti-conversion law of Uttar Pradesh (UP) were granted bail by the Allahabad high court (Dheeraj Govind Rao Jagtap vs the state of UP [criminal appeal no 988 of 2023). Accused of a “mass religious conversion racket”, they had been arrested by the anti-terrorism squad (ATS), UP for ‘waging war against India through illicit conversion activities. ‘

The Prosecution had levelled serious charges against all four accused, alleging that they engaged in activities that posed a threat to the nation’s interests. Their purported actions involved orchestrating large-scale conversions of individuals within the state of Uttar Pradesh, persuading them to convert from Hinduism to Islam through extensive promotion of the Islamic faith. Furthermore, the appellants are said to have provided rehabilitation and support to the converted individuals.

It was in 2021, the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) arrested these individuals and accused them of generating a substantial fund to finance their conversion activities, which constitutes an offense under the ambit of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. They were also charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups), 153-B (assertions prejudicial to national integration), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 417 (punishment for cheating), 298 (uttering words with the deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), 121A (conspiring to commit certain offenses), 123 (concealing with intent to facilitate design to wage war), and the Sections 3/5/8 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

After hearing the arguments presented by both parties and thoroughly examining the case records, the Court observed that during the initial stage, an FIR was filed against three specific accused individuals and several unidentified persons in connection with the alleged racket. Notably, the four appellants were not mentioned in that same FIR. The Court further took note of the fact that, upon the conclusion of the investigation, a police report in the form of a charge sheet was submitted before the competent court. Subsequently, the court took cognisance of the matter and framed charges against the appellants and other co-accused persons, and the trial is currently underway.

Considering these circumstances and taking into account the fact that their co-accused have already been granted bail by both the Supreme Court and the High Court, the Court granted bail to the appellants based on their pleas.

The Uttar Pradesh Anti-conversion law, currently under challenge in the Supreme Court, is a clear infringement on the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Disguised as a measure to maintain public order, the law, first enacted as an ordinance has severely diluted the essence of Article 25, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion. Moreover, it directly violates Article 21 of the Constitution, encroaching upon the right to marry, the right to privacy, and the right to personal autonomy. One of the most troubling aspects of the statute is its presumption of guilt rather than innocence. In India’s legal system, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but this ordinance reverses that principle by presuming those involved in proselytization as guilty from the outset. Furthermore, when applying tests of hostile discrimination and manifest arbitrariness, it becomes evident that the ordinance fails to treat all citizens equally before the law. It creates a discriminatory environment where certain vulnerable groups, such as economically weak, marginalized, and privileged women, are assumed to be susceptible to conversion. This presumption not only perpetuates stereotypes but also violates Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on gender.

The Uttar Pradesh Anti-conversion law undermines the foundational principles of the Constitution, including the right to freedom of religion, the right to personal autonomy, and the principle of innocence until proven guilty.

It also displays discriminatory tendencies, particularly against women, and thus raises serious concerns about its constitutionality and adherence to the principles of justice and equality, the act also violates the judgments of supreme court in following cases: Hadiya Judgment 2017[16 SCC 368, AIR 2018]: The matters of dress, food, ideas, ideologies, love, and partnership form the core aspects of an individual’s identity.

The State and the law cannot impose or restrict choices in selecting partners or impede a person’s freedom to decide on these vital matters. The K.S. Puttaswamy or ‘Privacy’ Judgment 2017[2017 10 SCC 1]: The autonomy of an individual encompasses the ability to make decisions concerning crucial aspects of life that directly concern them. Lata Singh Case 1994: The apex court recognized that India is undergoing a crucial transformative phase, and preserving the strength of the Constitution relies on embracing the richness of our diverse culture.

In cases of inter-religious marriage, relatives dissatisfied with the union should opt for peacefully cutting off social relations instead of resorting to violence or harassment (Soni Gerry case, 2018[SLP NO 6237/2017): The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned judges against assuming the role of “super-guardians” and making decisions based on sentimental or egotistical factors of parents.

Since its enactment in 2020, the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act has resulted in the registration of at least 433 cases by the Uttar Pradesh police. Among these cases, 184 victims have come forward to confess that they were forcefully converted to a different faith, while 66 cases involve minors who were subjected to such conversions.

Notably, the Bareilly police zone has seen the highest number of registrations, with 65 cases reported. Providing insight into the progress of these cases, Prashant Kumar, the Special Director General of Law and Order, stated that charge sheets have been filed in 339 cases, and investigations are still ongoing in 47 cases. Additionally, final reports have been filed in four cases.

The total number of individuals named in these 433 cases amounts to 1,229. Throughout the investigation process, the role of 124 accused individuals could not be established, leading to their release. Moreover, approximately 70 individuals named in the cases have voluntarily surrendered themselves in court.

The cases in Moradabad and Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, serve as stark examples of how anti-conversion laws can be prone to abuse. The case of a Christian priest in Azamgarh named pastor Nathaniel is accused of propagating and intimidating people to convert to Christianity. The complainant in the case was not any attendee of his prayer service, rather his neighbour a local BJP leader Sudhir Gupta who cannot be the complainant as per the law as section 4 of the Act. This section (4) explicitly stipulates that any individual who has been subjected to forceful or fraudulent conversion, as well as their blood relatives or family members, hold the right to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) concerning such conversion. In essence, this section clarifies that the complainant in such cases can be either the person who experienced coercion into conversion or any of their blood relatives or family members.

There is, however, a pattern being noticed across the districts where non-affected third party complaints to the police or they follow the channel of involving Hindutva vigilante groups to read further [The Quint, April 2023].

Although the law was ostensibly intended to uncover instances where religious conversion is solely for the purpose of facilitating marriages, the UP law has failed to effectively communicate its objectives, leaving no clear roadmap for identifying such cases. Consequently, there is a heightened risk of misuse of the law. In such a scenario, the burden of upholding justice and safeguarding individual rights falls heavily on the judicial system.

The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently upheld the principle of personal liberty for individuals who have attained the age of majority, and this responsibility becomes all the more crucial in light of the potential for misuse of the law.

Based on these observations, it is evident that the Uttar Pradesh legislation unjustly encroaches upon the constitutional right of individuals to marry the person of their choice.

This law could potentially undermine the principles laid out in the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954 and, even more importantly, the original vision of the Constitution’s framers for a Uniform Civil Code.

An immediate intervention is necessary to repeal laws like these as forced conversion is already proscribed, and introducing additional laws would only further erode the protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Moreover, it is crucial to prevent other states from following suit and enacting similar legislation that may compromise individual freedoms. To safeguard the principles of liberty and equality enshrined in the Constitution, it is essential to take prompt action and ensure that such restrictive laws are abolished, allowing every citizen to exercise their right to marry freely and protect their constitutionally upheld rights.

The recent judgement may be read here


[i] https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_states/uttar-pradesh/

https://theprint.in/india/1-year-of-up-anti-conversion-law-108-cases-chargesheet-filed-in-72-lack-of-proof-in-11/770763/


Related:

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

Exit mobile version