Anti-Conversion Law case: Central government opposes locus of Teesta Setalvad NGO; accuses it of divisive politics

The Central government has opposed the locus of activist Teesta Setalvad's NGO, Citizens for Peace and Justice (CJP) to challenge laws governing religious conversions enacted by certain States. .The affidavit filed by the Union of India said that CJP espouses divisive politics and seeks to divide society on religious and communal lines.The government has suggested that Supreme Court may hear the challenge by all other petitioners barring the NGO, CPJ, of which activist Teesta Setalvad is the secretary. .The bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala has been hearing the batch of petitions concerning anti-conversion laws passed by several States. .The plea by CPJ is one of the lead petitions in the matter. CPJ's plea has challenged the Constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020, and the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, which regulate religious conversions of people in interfaith marriages..Through a preliminary affidavit filed today, the Central government has now urged the top Court not to hear the plea moved by CPJ, accusing it of acting on the behest of "selected political interest" and casting "serious doubt" on its credentials. .The Union of India has asserted that the CPJ consciously espouses and promotes issues that fan "divisive politics" in order to divide the society along "religious and communal lines." Such activities have been carried out in several States and such activity is presently "going on in Assam", the affidavit stated. .The Central government has further submitted that CPJ is guilty of collecting huge funds and "exploiting the agonies of riot-affected people." Criminal proceedings are underway against Teesta Setalvad and other office bearers of CPJ, the affidavit added..The Centre has gone on to state that if the interests of CPJ are bonafide, then the organisation should have no qualms if the issue is dealt with through other petitions before the Supreme Court.The matter will be taken up for hearing on February 3, 2023.