Attorney General objects to SC hearing pleas against State Anti-Conversion Laws

Published
31st Jan, 2023

Context

Attorney General R. Venkataramani submitted that he has "serious objections" to the Supreme Court hearing the pleas challenging state legislations, bypassing the High Courts.

The objection made by Attorney General

These are State legislations and the State High Courts are hearing them.
There are petitions pending there and the same petitioners have now filed petitions in the Supreme Court.

Background

The Supreme Court has been hearing petitions filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace, and other connected petitions, challenging the validity of the enactments in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka.

Constitutional Provisions:

The Indian Constitution allows individuals the freedom to live by their religious beliefs and practices as they interpret these.

Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion
Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs
Article 27: Freedom to pay taxes for the promotion of any particular religion
Article 28: Freedom to attend religious instruction or worship in certain educational institutions.

Which Indian states have special laws on conversions?

In post-independence India, Odisha became the first State to enact a law restricting religious conversions in 1968.
More than ten Indian States have passed laws prohibiting certain means of religious conversions —Arunachal Pradesh (1978), Gujarat (2003), Chhattisgarh (2000 and 2006), Rajasthan (2006 and 2008), Himachal Pradesh (2006 and 2019), and Tamil Nadu (a law was enacted in 2002, but repealed in 2004), Jharkhand (2017), Uttarakhand (2018), Uttar Pradesh (2021), and Haryana (2022).
- The Karnataka Assembly also passed an anti-conversion Bill.

Supreme Court Judgements on Marriage and Conversion:

Hadiya Judgement 2017: Matters of dress and food, ideas and ideologies, of love and partnership, are within the central aspects of identity. Neither the State nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters. The principle that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21.
Lily Thomas and Sarla Mudgal cases: The Supreme Court of India, in both the Lily Thomas and Sarla Mudgal cases, has confirmed that religious conversions carried out without a bona fide belief and for the sole purpose of deriving some legal benefits do not hold water.
Salamat Ansari-PriyankaKharwar case of Allahabad High Court 2020: The right to choose a partner or live with a person of choice was part of a citizen’s fundamental right to life and liberty (Article 21).
Puttaswamy or ‘privacy’ Judgment 2017: Autonomy of the individual was the ability to make decisions in vital matters of concern to life.