"All Conversions Can't Be Said To Be Illegal' : Supreme Court Refuses To Stay MP HC Order Against Declaration Before DM To Change Religion

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on the special leave petition filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the High Court restraining the government from taking coercive action against any person who contravenes Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 which requires a person desiring to convert religion to give a declaration in this regard to the District Magistrate.However, the bench of Justices M. R. Shah and C. T. Ravikumar refused to stay the impugned order.Finding this provision to be prima facie unconstitutional, the HC division bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta, on 14.11.2022, further directed the state to not prosecute the adult citizens if they solemnise the marriage of their own volition. The court-room exchange as it transpired on Tuesday before Justices Shah and Ravikumar is as follows:Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta: "Here, the pith of the Act is stayed despite a similar provision being upheld by a Constitution bench of this court. Section 10 of the Act. The High Court goes wrong”Justice Shah: “The Section is not stayed, the action under section 10 is stayed”SG: “Yes, On the ground that there is one stay granted by the Gujarat High Court. Section 10(1) says any person who desires to convert shall submit a declaration to that effect 60 days prior to that conversion in prescribed form to the district magistrate stating that he desires to convert on his own without allurement, coercion, undue influence. There is no penal consequence. Subsection (2) says any religious priest or person who intends to organise conversion will give 60 days prior notice. Giving of notice is upheld by the Constitution bench. Kindly see (4). Penal consequence is not on the person who converts. Whoever contravenes the provisions of subsection (2) will be punished with imprisonment. So under 10(1), he is supposed to intimate the collector”Justice Shah: “Which is the judgment under which it is upheld?”SG: “1977 1 SCC 677. This very Act of Madhya Pradesh incidentally is involved”Justice Shah: “That is the 1968 act. That provision was somewhat different. 10(1) was not there”SG: “But the intimation provision was there”Justice Shah: “No, intimation only with respect to converting any person, not the person who is being converted. 10(1) is a different person”SG: “10(1) is where I am converting myself so I will intimate”Justice Shah: “such a provision was not there in the 1968 act”SG: “The provision in the 1968 Act says whoever converts any person from one religion to another either by performing any ceremony by himself for such conversion as a religious priest or takes part directly or indirectly in such ceremony shall take prior permission for such proposed conversion from the District Magistrate concerned by applying in such form as may be prescribed"Justice Shah: “it is para materia to 10(2)”SG: “In the CB judgment, your lordships had said, 'we have no doubt that it is in the sense that word ‘propagate’ in article 25(1) has been used, for what the article grants is not the right to convert but to transmit or spread by an exposition of its tenets. Article 25(1) guarantees freedom of conscience to every person and not merely the followers of one particular religion and that in turn postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert one person to one’s own religion because if one person purposely undertakes conversion to his religion as opposed from his efforts to transmit or spread the tenets of his religion, that would impinge on the freedom of conscience guaranteed to all citizens of India alike'”SG: “If you look at the reasoning of the High Court in the impugned order, it looks to an interim order passed by the Gujarat High Court which is subject matter of SLP before your Lordships. The basis of judgment in Stainislaus has been totally given a go by and the HC is Relying upon Puttaswamy. The HC says that a Similar enactment was introduced by the government of Gujarat and a division bench of the Gujarat High Court headed by chief Justice has protected the petitioner; that a Similar protection is prayed for by the present petitioner‘s counsel. The High Court is pleased to reread Kesavananda Bharati, Puttaswamy, Joseph Shine- which do not deal with conversion issue. There can’t be any objection to marriage, but marriage resulting in conversion? And what does it require? It requires intimation to the district magistrate. There is no penal consequence provided. This will set a precedent for the nation. We cited a judgment that at the stage of interim relief, there is a presumption of constitutionality, you cannot stay the effect of the provision also! Conversion takes place in two forms broadly- one is organised conversion, and the other is by way of allurement which is by marriage which is the form of allurement. The conversion in the country, your lordships can take judicial notice, is based upon the marriage. You marry a person outside your...

"All Conversions Can't Be Said To Be Illegal' : Supreme Court Refuses To Stay MP HC Order Against Declaration Before DM To Change Religion

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

"All Conversions Can't Be Said To Be Illegal' : Supreme Court Refuses To Stay MP HC Order Against Declaration Before DM To Change Religion

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers