SC seeks states’ replies on anti-conversion law pleas

THe sublime margaret court on tues sought-after(a) responses from several states on applications seeking hiatus of their anti-conversion laws, with petitioners arguing that the statutes are arbitrary and infringe the fundamental rights of individuals to convert and to exercise free will.A bench of Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the validity of “freedom of religion” laws enacted by Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka. The court gave the states four weeks to respond and posted the matter for further hearing after six weeks.Senior advocate Chander Uday Singh, appearing for Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), pressed for an urgent hearing, pointing out that some states have amended their laws to make them harsher. He told the court that in 2024, Uttar Pradesh amended its legislation to prescribe a minimum of 20 years’ imprisonment, which could extend to life, for unlawful religious conversion through marriage.“Twin bail conditions” similar to those under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were introduced, third parties were allowed to file complaints, and penalties were enhanced, he added. These measures, Singh argued, have emboldened vigilante groups, leading to harassment of interfaith couples and even ordinary church gatherings.Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the National Federation of Indian Women, also informed the bench that her client has sought suspension of the laws, citing their disproportionate impact on women and minorities.Petitioners reminded the bench that both the Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh High Courts had already stayed parts of the conversion laws in those states. The Gujarat government and Madhya Pradesh had moved the Supreme Court against these interim stays, and the matters are now part of the present batch.The bench directed Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing the respondent states, to ensure that replies were filed on the stay applications. Senior advocates Indira Jaising, Sanjay Hegde, MR Shamshad and Sanjay Parikh also appeared for the petitioners. To streamline the hearings, the bench appointed advocates Srishti Agnihotri and Ruchira Goel as nodal counsel for the petitioners and respondents respectively to prepare compilations.At the same time, the bench de-tagged a public interest petition by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking a pan-India law to criminalise conversion through coercion and deceit, making it clear that the current hearings concern only the validity of state legislations.The challenge to these laws has been pending before the Supreme Court since January 2020, when a bench led by then CJI DY Chandrachud issued notice in the matter. Later, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind sought transfer of 21 petitions from six high courts-- Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh -- to the apex court for a uniform decision.Jamiat’s Gujarat wing, in its plea, argued that the laws were “violative of core fundamental values such as secularism, fraternity, dignity and privacy.” Citizens for Justice and Peace and the National Federation of Indian Women have also challenged the laws, calling them “freedom of religion” statutes in name but oppressive in practice.While the Centre earlier contended that such laws ought to be examined by the respective high courts since they are state legislations, petitioners have maintained that the common constitutional questions involved warrant a hearing by the apex court.The issue of forced conversion has long been politically and socially contentious. The state governments have supported anti-conversion laws as necessary for protecting vulnerable sections of society, including women and the economically disadvantaged. The bunch of petitions have however questioned whether these laws, many of which criminalise conversion through marriage and put the burden of proof on individuals, can survive constitutional scrutiny.