The Supreme Court recently raised serious questions over the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, observing that the law seems to introduce an "onerous procedure" for a person wanting to change his religion [Rajendra Bihari Lal and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others]

The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra also flagged the "conspicuous" nature of the involvement and interference of government authorities in the process of religious conversion.

"The constitutional validity of the provisions of the U.P. Conversion Act does not fall for our consideration in the instant case. Nonetheless, we can’t help but observe that the provisions of the said Act pertaining to the pre and post-conversion declaration seem to introduce a very onerous procedure to be followed by an individual seeking to adopt a faith other than the one he professes. The involvement and interference of the State authorities in the conversion procedure is also conspicuous, with the District Magistrate having been legally obliged to direct a police enquiry in each case of intended religious conversion," it also noted.

The Court further observed that the requirement of making public the details of converts may require a deeper examination in context of the right to privacy.

"Further, the statutory requirement of making public the personal details of each person who has converted to a different religion may require a deeper examination to ascertain if such a requirement fits well with the privacy regime pervading the constitution," it said.

While highlighting the stringent procedure for religious conversion in the State, the Court considered it fit to point to the preamble and the secular nature of Indian Constitution.

The Court stressed that the Preamble is of extreme importance and the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of its "noble and grand" vision.

It also underscored that though the word 'secular' was inserted into the Constitution through an amendment in 1976, secularism is an intrinsic part of the basic structure of the Constitution as was held in the 1973 decision in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala.

"In the preamble to the Constitution of India the words ‘SOCIALIST SECULAR’ were inserted by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. The secular nature of India is an intrinsic part of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution, as held in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1973 SC 1461. As laid down in the Preamble, the People of India, have resolved to secure to all its citizens, liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, apart from Justice, social, economic and political; Equality of status and of opportunity and to promote among them all fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual, and the unity and integrity of the Nation," the bench said.

The Court added that people of India are given the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship and that the liberty is an embodiment and expression of the secular nature of the country.

"Article 25 lays down that all persons are equally entitled to have the freedom of conscience and shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, which are subject to public order, morality and health and the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The right conferred by Article 25 does not prevent the State from making any law, regulating or restricting any secular activity which may be associated with religious practice, providing for social welfare and reform," it further said.

The Court also said that the people in India have a right to propagate their religious views.

"Subject to the restrictions which Article 25 imposes, every person has a fundamental right under our Constitution, not merely to entertain such religious belief as may be approved of by his judgment or conscience, but to exhibit his belief and ideas in such overt acts, as are enjoined or sanctioned by his religion and further to propagate his religious views for his edification of others," the Court emphasized.

In this regard, the Court reproduced and pointed to earlier judgments about religious freedom, right to privacy and the right to choose one's partner.

However, since the question validity of the provisions of Uttarakhand Pradesh's conversion law were not under challenge before it, the Court limited its observation on the subject.

The law is under challenge before the top court in a different case.

In the present matter, the Court was dealing with a batch of petitions concerning six criminal cases registered by Uttar Pradesh Police under various provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the anti-conversion law.

One of the cases filed by a member of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) was registered against 35 names and 20 unknown accused. It pertained to an alleged event of mass religious conversion at the Evangelical Church of India in Fatehpur's Hariharganj.

In another case, the Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS), Dr. Rajendra Bihari Lal, was made an accused.

In the judgment dated October 17, the top court quashed the case of religious conversion against Lal and others.

In total, the Court quashed five FIRs. With regard to the sixth FIR, the Court found that the Allahabad High Court had committed error in refusing to quash charges of illegal religious conversion.

It allowed the case to proceed only in respect of other charges under IPC, stating that the matter needs further consideration.

"We clarify that insofar as FIR for the alleged offences under Sections 307, 386 and 504 of the I.P.C. respectively is concerned, the matter requires further consideration once all the relevant documents are brought on record and is thus ordered to be de-tagged from the present batch. The interim protection granted to the Petitioner earlier by this Court shall continue till the matter is finally heard and decided," it added.

Commenting on the evidence in one of the cases of religious conversion, the Court found the affidavits submitted by the victim-witnesses to have been prepared in a cyclostyled manner, with the same draft having been copied and pasted after changing their personal details.

It also questioned how the statements of certain witnesses, who had neither undergone conversion nor been at the place of alleged mass conversion, could help the prosecution case.

"The criminal law cannot be allowed to be made a tool of harassment of innocent persons, allowing prosecuting agencies to initiate prosecution at their whims and fancy, on the basis of completely incredulous material," the Court said.

[Read Judgment]