Forced conversions dangerous, may affect nation’s security
- November 15, 2022
- Posted by: OptimizeIAS Team
- Category: DPN Topics
No Comments
Forced conversions dangerous, may affect nation’s security
Subject: Polity
Context:
- The Supreme Court in its judgement on a petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking directions to the Centre and states to take stringent steps to check such conversions said that “forced” religious conversions are “very dangerous” and may “affect the security of the nation and freedom of religion and conscience” and asked the Centre to step in and make “very serious and sincere efforts” to tackle the issue.
What is the issue:
- A petition was filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking directions to the Centre and states to take stringent steps to check forced conversions.
- In response to the petition, the Supreme Court instructed the Center to file a response by November 22, and posted the matter for hearing on November 28.
- The plea pointed out that in the 1977 ruling in the Rev Stainislaus versus State of Madhya Pradesh case, the Supreme Court had said “It has to be remembered that Article 25(1) guarantees ‘freedom of conscience’ to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular religion and that, in turn, postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one’s own religion.
Did India have anti-conversion laws in the past:
- Princely states headed by Hindu royal families were the first to introduce laws restricting religious conversions during the British colonial era, especially during the latter half of the 1930s and 1940s.
- These laws were enacted to preserve Hindu religious identity amid British’s domination.
- There were over dozens of Princely states with such laws, including Kota, Bikaner, Jodhpur, Raigarh, Patna, Surguja, Udaipur and Kalahandi.
- Independent India also witnessed the introduction of anti-conversion bills in the Parliament, though none was implemented due to the lack of political support.
- In 2015, the Union law ministry stated that a law against forced and fraudulent conversions cannot be created at the national level since law and order is a state subject under the Indian Constitution.
- This means that the state governments have the power to enact such laws.
What is the Status of Anti-Conversion Laws in India:
- Constitutional Provision: The Indian Constitution under Article 25 guarantees the freedom to profess, propagate, and practise religion, and allows all religious sections to manage their own affairs in matters of religion; subject to public order, morality, and health.However, no person shall force their religious beliefs and consequently, no person should be forced to practice any religion against their wishes.
- Existing Laws: There has been no central legislation restricting or regulating religious conversions.However, since 1954, on multiple occasions, Private Member Bills have been introduced in (but never approved by) the Parliament, to regulate religious conversions.Over the years, several states have enacted ‘Freedom of Religion’ legislation to restrict religious conversions carried out by force, fraud, or inducements.
Which are the states that currently have anti-conversion laws:
- Freedom of Religion laws are currently enforced in ten states i.e Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana,Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand.
What are some Supreme Court Judgements on Marriage and Conversion:
- HadiyaJudgement 2017:
- Matters of dress and of food, of 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.
- The Supreme Court of India, in both the Lily Thomas and SarlaMudgal cases, has confirmed that religious conversions carried out without a bonafide 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.