Challenge to Anti-Conversion Laws | Day 2: Laws criminalising conversion as severe as PMLA and TADA, petitioners argue
Constitutionality of Anti-Conversion LawsJudges: B.R. Gavai J, K.V. Chandran J
Today, the Supreme Court issued notices in pleas challenging anti-conversion laws passed by states including Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, and others. The lead petition was filed by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) in 2020 challenging the constitutional validity of the laws. At the time they had argued that the anti-conversion bills were based on a “baseless rhetoric” known as “love jihad”.
Senior Advocate C.U. Singh appeared for one of the petitioners. He argued that the anti-conversion laws are falsely positioned as “freedom of religion”. In reality, they are arbitrary statutes seeking to prohibit religious conversion.
Singh: Bail will be “impossible” under anti-conversion laws
Singh argued that the laws are being made more stringent through amendments. He pointed out that the state laws have imposed twin-conditions for bail, imposing the same draconian standards of burden of proof as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.
Further, he highlighted that “inducement of marriage” carries an imprisonment of 20 years under these laws, with a reverse burden of proof. Singh added that amendments have allowed third parties or interested parties to file complaints—not just the families. “Bail will become impossible”, Singh exclaimed.
Several parties have filed interlocutory applications (IAs) challenging the amendments made since 2020. Singh requested the Court to consider the new IAs with a great seriousness, adding that persons of an interfaith marriage face a lot of harassment.
Soon after, several counsel, including Senior Advocates Indira Jaising and Vrinda Grover, requested the Bench to admit their IAs.
Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, appearing as a petitioner in-person, stated that his application was seeking a ban on “wrongful and deceitful” conversion. To this, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai asked, “Who will find out as to whether it is deceitful or not?”. Senior Advocate P. Wilson responded that what Upadhyay was seeking was in the legislative domain and out of the scope of the Court’s powers. The Bench detagged Upadhyay’s petition.
Notably, there are 13 applications tagged to CJP’s petition challenging the state laws. The Bench directed the states counsels and respondents to file their replies within four weeks. The Court will hear the matter again after six weeks.