New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought the stand of several states on pleas seeking a stay on their respective anti-conversion laws.
While issuing notices to the states, a bench of Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran made it clear that it will consider the prayer for staying the operation of such laws once the replies were in.
The bench then granted four weeks to the states for their responses and allowed the petitioners to file rejoinders two weeks thereafter. The matter was posted after six weeks.
The bench, in the meantime, permitted senior advocate C U Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners against the anti-conversion laws, to amend the petition keeping in mind the “more draconian” changes made by states like Uttar Pradesh in the existing statute.
The bench was hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws enacted by several states, including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka.
It heard arguments from senior advocates and others on the contentious issue of religious conversions happening either through marriage or other means.
Singh stressed on the urgency in the matter, warning “anybody who marries in an interfaith marriage, bail would become impossible”.
He highlighted many states had already enacted such laws, with Rajasthan being the latest to pass a legislation in this regard.
Singh said amendments introduced in Uttar Pradesh allowed third parties to lodge complaints, leading to “huge amounts of harassment” in interfaith marriages besides church observances, where mobs intervene.
He sought the amendment applications filed in the special leave petitions to be allowed.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, on the other hand, requested an interim stay on the law passed by Madhya Pradesh to be continued.
Advocate Vrinda Grover informed the bench of having filed intervention applications for stay on similar laws in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana.
Additional Solicitor General K M Natraj opposed the plea for interim relief on behalf of some states and said, “After three-four years, suddenly they file for stay. We will file our replies.”
The bench also ordered de-tagging of a separate plea filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, who sought a ban on deceitful religious conversions.
“Who will find out whether it is a deceitful conversion?” the CJI asked.
The court appointed advocate Shrishti as the nodal counsel for the petitioners and advocate Ruchira as the nodal counsel for the respondent states to streamline communication in the case.
The Centre previously raised questions over the locus standi of activist Teesta Setalwad’s NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace in challenging the contentious state laws regulating religious conversions due to interfaith marriages.
Alleging the NGO allows its name to be used “at the behest of some selected political interest”, the Union of India claimed it was guilty of collecting huge funds by exploiting the agonies of riot-affected people.
“From a series of judicial proceedings, it is now established that the petitioner 1 allows its name to be used through its two office-bearers at the behest of some selected political interest and also earns out of such activity,” the Ministry of Home Affairs had said.
The apex court on January 6, 2021 agreed to examine certain new and controversial laws of states like Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand regulating religious conversions due to interfaith marriages.
The Uttar Pradesh law relates to not only interfaith marriages but all religious conversions and lays down elaborate procedures for anyone who wishes to convert to another religion.
The Uttarakhand law entails a two-year jail term for those found guilty of religious conversion through “force or allurement”. The allurement can be in the form of cash, employment or material benefits.
The plea filed by the NGO alleged that these legislations violate Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution as those empower the State to suppress an individual’s personal liberty and freedom to practise the religion of his choice.
