The recent approval of an ordinance to tackle illegal religious conversions by the government of Uttar Pradesh (UP) has stirred up a discussion. This action is seen as contradicting several Supreme Court judgments in the past. The specifics of the UP Unlawful Religious Conversion Prohibition Ordinance, 2020 and its implications need to be highlighted and digested to understand its potential impact on various aspects of freedom, identity, and cultural diversity.
Understanding the UP Unlawful Religious Conversion Prohibition Ordinance, 2020
This recent ordinance passed by the UP government classifies religious conversion for marriage as a non-bailable offence. The defendant carries the burden of proof in demonstrating that the conversion was not intended solely for marriage. The law stipulates a two-month notice period to the District Magistrate prior to any conversion activity. Witnessing a violation of this provision can result in imprisonment ranging from one to five years along with a fine of Rs. 15,000.
Implications for Women and Specific Social Groups
The ordinance takes a stricter stance on cases involving women, especially those who are minors or belong to the Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST). In such instances, the minimum jail term is three years, which can be extended up to 10 years, accompanied by a fine of Rs. 25,000. Furthermore, if a woman converts solely for marriage, the union stands void under this law.
Punishments for Mass Conversions
Mass conversions, particularly those conducted by registered social organizations, are targeted heavily in the ordinance. The law mandates punishments like cancellation of registration, imprisonment for a term not less than three years (extendable to 10 years), and levying a fine amounting to Rs. 50,000.
Supreme Court’s Perspective on Marriage and Conversion
The Supreme Court, in its various rulings, has stood firm on the principle that an individual’s right to choose a partner is paramount and independent of their religious leanings. The court defines marriage as a core aspect of privacy, inviolable and intricately linked to a person’s identity and personhood.
Examining Previous Related Judgments
Several significant judgments go hand-in-hand with the court’s stance on personal freedom and choice. The Hadiya Judgment (2017) stressed on individual autonomy within matters of identity and partnership. The K.S. Puttuswamy judgment upheld the significance of individual decision-making in life. In Lata Singh case (1994), the ruling highlighted acceptance of cultural diversity as key to constitutional strength.
Moreover, Soni Gerry case (2018) cautioned against over-interference in personal matters, while Salamat Ansari-Priyanka Kharwar case (2020) reaffirmed an individual’s fundamental right to choose a partner.
The Way Forward
Given the roster of past judgments and the varying perspectives on religious conversion, it becomes crucial for the government implementing such laws to tread carefully. The rights and freedoms of individuals should not be curtailed, nor should it stymie national integration. Striking a delicate balance between protecting individual freedoms and guarding against malicious conversions is of utmost importance.
