UP Ordinance Against Religious Conversions By Marriage Puts Freedom Of Choice & Dignity On Backseat : Justice Madan Lokur

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B Lokur criticized the recent Ordinance brought by the Uttar Pradesh Government to criminalize religious conversions by marriage.The judge described the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020, promulgated last week, as "placing on the backseat the freedom of choice and dignity". "States of Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Haryana, Assam are planning to come up with similar ordinances. The purpose of this law is to prohibit what is popularly known as love jihad", he said."Although 'love jihad' has no definition, one chief minister has defined it as 'Jihadis playing with the honour and dignity of our sisters and daughters by hiding their real names and identities'. Another chief minister went to the extent of saying that 'if these Jihadis don't mend their ways, it is the beginning of the journey to their graves'. Is this possible death sentence already pronounced sanctioned under the Constitution or by the law? This seems to be a resurgence of the trend of mob lynching...What about the freedom of choice? Why not declare a war on child marriage, which by definition is a forced marriage?", wondered Justice Lokur. "Our carefully-crafted dignity jurisprudence which has been assiduously developed by the Supreme Court over years is being given a cremation of the Hathras kind", he saidJustice Lokur, now a judge of the Supreme Court of Fiji, called 'Spade a Spade" at the Seventh Sunil Memorial Lecture held on November 29, addressing the virtual audience on the topic: "Judiciary and Social Justice, Dignity and Personal Liberty- Human Rights and Fright".UP Ordinance Criminalizing Religious Conversion By Marriage Is An Assault On Personal LibertyStating that the judiciary in India has travelled a long distance so far as personal liberty is concerned, former judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Madan B. Lokur, observed that the courts now seem to be going in reverse.Justice Lokur, indicating how dissent is being now deemed as sedition very often, which is in turn being treated as an offence under the UAPA, warned that soon enough any such offence would begin to attract the National Security Act, which leads to the frightening prospect of the invocation of the preventive detention law. "Rights would then turn into frights", he said."Courts need to walk the talk, otherwise like Humpty Dumpty, there will be a great fall of social values, which nobody will be able to put together again", articulated Justice Lokur.He referred to the instance of journalist Sidhique Kappan who was on his way to Hathras to cover the story of the rape and murder and the undignified remission of a Dalit girl, when he was detained under section 107 and 151 of the Cr.P.C. on the apprehension of breach of peace, disturbing public tranquility and the commission of a cognizable offence. "Ideally he should have been released on furnishing a personal bond of good behaviour immediately. However, the safeguards of sections 111 and 115 of the Cr. P.C. were not followed...he was not given time to consult with a lawyer, and when he was produced before the court, he was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, a FIR for sedition and for offences under the UAPA came to be registered against him. A union of working journalists moved a habeas corpus petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32. The Hindu and a law-related website reported that the Supreme Court was reluctant to entertain the petition, despite the fact that it concerned the crucial issue of personal liberty and the freedom of the press, and observed that the union could approach the jurisdictional High Court with the same prayer. Liberty was granted to the union to amend the petition and the petition was adjourned by four weeks", he narrated."Article 32 guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights accorded by Part III of the Constitution and it was this jurisdiction which was invoked by the journalist", he said.Justice Lokur described the order of the CJM disallowing the journalist to meet his lawyer and the consequent helplessness expressed by the jail authorities as a violation of basic human rights and the rule of law- 'The CJM passed a cryptic order noting that no such order has been passed by the Supreme Court and there is no power of attorney annexed to the application and hence, the application is rejected. Look at the impossible situation created by the magistrate and further aggravated by the jail authorities to deny access to justice"The judge cited more such instances of "absence of grace in the criminal justice system", of activist Varavara Rao, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, activist Stan Swamy, and of the anti-CAA protesters."An 80-year-old (Rao) who had been in judicial custody for almost 2 years under the draconian UAPA sought bail. The Bombay High Court itself noted that the petitioner was almost on deathbed. However, no bail was...

UP Ordinance Against Religious Conversions By Marriage Puts Freedom Of Choice & Dignity On Backseat : Justice Madan Lokur

Mehal Jain

Tags