Unlawful Conversion Bill 2021 Passed in UP

In News: Recently, the Uttar Pradesh Assembly passed the ‘Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Bill, 2021’, commonly known as the ‘love jihad’ law.

• The bill will now be sent to the UP legislative council for its approval before it becomes an Act after a formal nod by the governor.

Background

• The UP Cabinet had cleared the ordinance on November 24 after the Allahabad High Court upheld people’s right to freedom of choice of individuals, putting down its own previous order, which stated that conversion for the sake of marriage was not acceptable.

Key Highlights of the Bill

• Under the Bill, if a person convicted of doing forceful conversions for the sake of marriage shall face imprisonment of between one-five years and the crime will be a non-bailable offence.
  • The Bill mainly envisages that no person shall convert, either directly or indirectly from one religion to another by use or practice of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage nor shall any person abet, convince or conspire such conversion.
• If an individual wants to marry after converting to any other religion, they will need to take permission from the district magistrate two months before the wedding.
• Violation of provisions of the law provides-

• Jail term of a minimum of 1 year, up to 5 years, or a fine of Rs 15,000 (in normal cases)
• Jail term of a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 10 years, and a fine of Rs 25,000 (if the girl is a minor or from the SC/ST community)
• Jail term of a minimum of 3 years, up to 10 years, and a fine of Rs 50,000 (in case of mass religious conversion)

• A similar law in other states –
  • Several states, including Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Uttarakhand, already have in place “anti-conversion laws” that regulate religious conversion.

Petition filed in this context

• In December 2020, a petition was filed in the SC to declare ordinances unconstitutional.
• These laws are oppressive, against public policy and society at large and will create fear and chaos in society.
• Cases were reported where rampaging mobs lifted off people in the middle of wedding ceremonies.
• The concerned laws are in violation of the fundamental rights of dignity and liberty enshrined under Article 21.
• They had been enacted despite a series of earlier judgments by the SC, which underlined that the choice of a life partner, whether by marriage or outside it, was part of an individual’s “personhood and identity”.
  • Including in the Hadiya case, that right to marry a person of one’s choice was part of an adult’s privacy.
• The Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind (one of the leading organizations of Islamic scholars in India) also highlighted that the Uttar Pradesh law violates the fundamental rights of the Muslim youth, who are being targeted and demonised.

Supreme Court’s Stand

• A Bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) had earlier asked the petitioners to go to the respective State High Courts with their concerns challenging the laws.
• It acknowledged that petitioners have come under Article 32 (the right to move the SC by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights) of the Constitution and highlighted that it had already issued a notice regarding the concerns.
• However, it has not stayed the implementation of these laws.

Earlier Related Judgements

• Hadiya Judgement 2017
  • Matters of dress and of food, of ideas and ideologies, of love and partnership, are within the central aspects of identity.
    • Neither the State nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters.

• K.S. Puttaswamy or ‘Privacy’ Judgment 2017:
  • The autonomy of the individual was the ability to make decisions in vital matters of concern to life.

• Lata Singh Case 1994
  • The apex court held that India is going through a “crucial transformational period” and the “Constitution will remain strong only if we accept the plurality and diversity of our culture”.
  • Relatives disgruntled by the inter-religious marriage of a loved one could opt to “cut off social relations” rather than resort to violence or harassment.

• Soni Gerry case, 2018
  • The SC warned judges from playing “super-guardians”, succumbing to “any kind of sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father”.

• Salamat Ansari-Priyanka Kharwar case of Allahabad High Court 2020
  • The right to choose a partner or live with a person of choice was part of a citizen’s fundamental right to life and liberty (Article 21).
  • It also held that earlier court rulings upholding the idea of religious conversion for marriage as unacceptable are not good in law.

Source :TH