Supreme Court on Religious Conversions
Context
Recently, the Supreme Court has ruled that religious conversions with an intention to only gain reservation benefits without genuine belief in the new faith undermine the essence of the reservation policy and violate constitutional principles.
Relevance:
GS-02 (Polity)
Dimensions of the Article:
- Background
- Key Highlights
- Article 25
- Anti-Conversion Law in UP
Background:
- Recently, a woman from Puducherry who was a Christian by birth claimed that she belongs to Scheduled Caste (SC) status by declaring herself a Hindu to secure a government job.
- Her claim was dismissed as fraudulent, with the court emphasising the importance of genuine religious belief in conversion.
Key Highlights
- Justice R. Mahadevan, writing the judgement, emphasised that the right to freedom of religion under Article 25, especially with respect to conversions, should stem from genuine inspiration by a faith’s principles, not for exploiting reservation benefits.
- Misusing conversion to secure quota privileges undermines the social ethos and intent of the reservation policy.
- Recently, the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly passed the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2024. This bill amends the original 2021 anti-conversion law, making its provisions more stringent and expanding its scope for potential misuse.
Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
- It guarantees the freedom of conscience, the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion to all citizens, subject to public order, health, and morality.
- The article also gives a provision that the state can make laws:
- That regulates and restricts any financial, economic, political, or other secular activity associated with any religious practice.
- That provides for the social welfare and reform or opening up of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all sections and classes of Hindus. Under this provision, Hindus are construed as including the people professing the Sikh, Jain, or Buddhist religions, and Hindu institutions shall also be construed accordingly.
- People of the Sikh faith wearing & carrying the kirpan shall be considered included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
- Meanwhile, anti-conversion laws in India require individuals who wish to convert to another religion to obtain government permission beforehand.
- The Supreme Court of India has ruled that anti-conversion laws are constitutional as long as they do not interfere with an individual’s right to freedom of religion
Anti-Conversion Law in UP
The anti-conversion law in Uttar Pradesh, initially enacted in 2021, aims to prevent unlawful religious conversions through coercion, misrepresentation, and other fraudulent means. The 2024 amendment has further tightened these regulations. Key aspects include:
- Penalties:
- Increased minimum prison term from 1 year to 5 years, and maximum from 5 years to 10 years.
- Increased fines from ₹15,000 to ₹50,000 for general unlawful conversions.
- Enhanced penalties for conversions involving minors, women, or SC/ST individuals, with prison terms ranging from 5 to 14 years and fines up to ₹1 lakh.
- New Offences:
- Securing foreign or illegal funds for conversions: 7-14 years imprisonment and a ₹10 lakh fine.
- Using threats, force, or inducements to cause conversions: 20 years to life imprisonment.
- Complaint Registration:
- Any person can now file an FIR, expanding the original scope that allowed only aggrieved persons or their relatives to file complaints.
- Bail Provisions:
- All offences are cognisable and non-bailable.
- Twin conditions for bail similar to stringent laws like PMLA and UAPA, making bail difficult to obtain.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutionality of anti-conversion laws as long as they do not interfere with an individual’s right to freedom of religion. But the freedom under Article 25 does not allow to exploit the reservation policy and the constitutional principles for personal benefits. The ruling serves as a reminder that constitutional rights, including those related to religion and reservations, must be exercised with integrity. Misusing these provisions not only violates the law but also disrupts the intended social equity framework.
