UP Ordinance On Conversion Is Nothing But Criminalization Of Inter-Faith Marriages : Petitioner's Rejoinder In Allahabad High Court

"If a person exercises the freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution to marry somebody of his or her choice, and in that process, one partner chooses to change their religion immediately prior to marriage, that should not be the matter of concern for the State of any Social Watchdogs," submitted a writ petitioner before the Allahabad High Court, in a batch of PILs challenging the constitutional validity of the UP Government's controversial Ordinance on religious conversions. Last week, the Government had defended the law stating that it is aimed at preventing any form of unlawful conversion actuated by elements of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, by marriage, etc. The Government had also cited conversion of faith by a Hindu person after marriage with a Muslim person as an example of forceful conversion arguing that conversion is not out of choice but due to intervention of personal law. Such conversion is done out of compulsion as personal law treats such inter-religious marriage as invalid, the State had claimed. Religious Conversion For Marriage Not Exercise Of Choice When It Is Due To Compulsion Of Personal Law: UP Govt Defends 'Love Jihad' Ordinance Responding to the State's counter affidavit, one of the Petitioners, Advocate Saurabh Kumar, represented by Advocates Devesh Saxena, Shashwat Anand and Vishesh Rajvanshi, has filed a rejoinder affidavit, inter alia, stating: "The impugned Ordinance is nothing but legal sanction to the criminalization of inter-faith marriages. It is a direct assault on Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees personal liberty and the right to life." The matter is listed for hearing before a Division Bench led by Chief Justice Govind Mathur tomorrow, i.e. January 18. In a related development, the Allahabad High Court pronounced a verdict last week to take away mandatory publication of notice under the Special Marriage Act, making it easier for couples to register marriage under the special law without fear of intervention by vigilante groups. Ordinance promotes conspiracy theory of Love-Jihad Referring to the Preamble of the impugned Ordinance, the Petitioner has submitted that the law equates marriage with misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement and fraudulent means. Amongst other things, he submitted, it seeks to prohibit what it calls 'unlawful conversion by marriage'. Resisting this, the Petitioner submitted, "The state's concern about forcible conversions is understandable as it could involve several crimes, such as wrongful confinement (Section 342 IPC), intimidation (section 506 IPC), kidnapping (Section 359-369 IPC), assault (Section 352 IPC), threat of divine displeasure (Section 508 IPC) etc. But the fact remains that there are enough laws on the statute book that are adequate to convict those accused of the crime or tackle coercive conversion." He has also objected to the proviso to Section 3 of the impugned ordinance inasmuch as it lays down that "reconversion" to a person's previous religion is not illegal, even if it is vitiated by fraud, force, allurement, misrepresentation and so on. "Through this peculiar provision, the law seems to contradict its own vicious theories of forceful conversions and breach of public order," the Petitioner submits. Law discriminatory for Indian women The Petitioner contended that even if for the sake of argument, it is considered that the impugned ordinance is a shield to protect forceful conversions, even then such a law is "exceptionally discriminatory" for Indian women. "In the framing of the "love jihad" narrative, Hindu women are only gullible victims, who have been made to stray away from the fold of their clan and community. They are not consenting adults free to make their own choices — good or bad. It is an idea that feeds the need of all patriarchal societies to control "sisters and daughters" — never independent women — and their sexuality," the affidavit states. Confuses community's interest with public interest In its counter affidavit, the UP Government had declared that 'community interest is on a much higher pedestal than agreement of two individuals who enter into wedlock'. The Petitioner has contended that this proposition overturns the spirit of the Constitution and implies that no two individuals can make a decision regarding their marriage partners without seeking the sanction of the community they are a part of. "If a particular group or community declares that its sentiments have been hurt by a particular action, which is otherwise lawful, then this cannot be a pretext for abridging someone's legitimate exercise of right, on the plea that some community interest is thereby violated. Nor can a plea be advanced that the exercise of such right may, by hurting the 12 sentiments of a particular community or group, create a law and order...

UP Ordinance On Conversion Is Nothing But Criminalization Of Inter-Faith Marriages : Petitioner's Rejoinder In Allahabad High Court

Akshita Saxena

Tags