Relevance: GS-1: Social Empowerment, Communalism, Regionalism & Secularism.

Key Phrases: Anti conversion laws

Why in news?

• Recently Karnataka launched draft anti-conversion bill

Analysis:

What are these laws?

• 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.
• Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh passed anti-conversion laws that outlaw religious conversion solely for the purpose of marriage
• Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religious Ordinance, 2020 also requires a 60-days-notice. However, it also requires the Magistrate to conduct police inquiry to ascertain the real intension behind the conversion
• Under the MP law, the burden of proving that the conversion was done in a legitimate fashion lies with the person converted.
• Under the MP law, any marriage where a husband or wife has converted (even consensually) will be declared null and void unless prior notice is given to the state government.
• Karnataka law says Any person intending to convert to another religion after the law comes into force will have to notify the district magistrate two months in advance

What is states’ argument behind these laws?

• A committee led by Chief Justice of Nagpur Niyogi found that religious conversions were not “completely voluntary”.
• Forcible conversion of religion would involve several crimes, including wrongful confinement (Section 342 IPC), intimidation (Section 506 IPC), kidnapping (Section 359-369 IPC), assault (Section 352 IPC), the threat of divine displeasure (Section 508 IPC) etc.
• Anti-conversion laws safeguard human rights by preventing fake, fraudulent or deceitful premises of marriage.’
• Problem of Inducement or allurement: Odisha’s anti-conversion law mentions allurement or inducement as an offering of any gift or gratification, either in cash or in-kind, and also includes a grant of any benefit, which is pecuniary or otherwise. In Rev. Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) case the court upheld this definition.
• Religious conversion is not a Fundamental Right: Supreme Court in Rev. Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) case held that the conversion isn’t a fundamental Right and so could be regulated by the state
• Legal remedies are provided by these laws for those who were duped or forced into conversion.

These laws are threat to personal freedom and religious freedom

• The mandatory prior declaration of the intention to convert violates the right to keep one’s faith secret.
• Publishing one’s personal details spreads the news to the family and the larger community, leading to the possibility of honour killings. More than 350 such killings have taken place over the last 6 years
• They deprive the woman of her agency and in effect controls female sexuality.
• These laws are based on the assumption that women are incapable of deciding for themselves and are easy prey to forceful conversions
• There are already provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure that protects against coercive conversions. Excessive legislation only criminalises day-to-day activities.
• Anti-conversion laws are indirectly policing intermingling of castes and faiths.
• The Centre informed the Lok Sabha that there is no case of love jihad reported by any of the central agencies.
• Asymmetrical with Various Supreme Court’s Judgment: The Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan v Ashok KM (2018), has upheld the right to marry a person of one’s choice as a part of Article 21.
• Interference of state: Apart from being vague and sweeping, the laws also test the limits to which the state can interfere in the personal affairs of individuals
• According to the USCIRF (United States Commission on International Religious Freedom), some observers note that “anti-conversion laws create a hostile, and on occasion violent, environment for religious minority communities since they do not require any evidences to support such accusations of wrongdoing.

Judicial pronouncements on such laws

• Salamat Ansari- Priyanka Kharwar 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).
• Hadiya Case: Matters of dress and of food, of ideas and ideologies, of love and partnership, are within the central aspects of identity. Neither state nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person decide on these matters
• K.S. Puttuswamy case: The autonomy of the individual is the ability to make decisions in vital matters of concern to life. Any interference by the state in an adult’s right to love and marry has a “chilling effect” on freedoms.Intimacies of marriages exist within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable
• The Uttarakhand HC, in November 2017, held that conversions for the sake of marriage a sham and urged the government to enact the law against such conversions. This became the basis for the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018

Way ahead

• The judiciary can do well by putting forth the principle that every citizen is free to take actions that are not harmful to oneself and others.
• Anti-conversion laws must be backed by a concrete study on the ground-realty of such forced conversions.
• At the same time, it is the duty of the state to enable and facilitate inter-faith/inter-caste marriages. Allahabad HC ruling on SMA is a step in the right direction.
• State while enacting anti-conversion laws should also respect their Freedom to get convert and should not put any vague or ambiguous provisions for the person who wanted to convert of his own will.
• Awareness to the people: People also need to be educated about the provisions and ways of Forceful conversions, Inducement or allurement etc.
• There is a need for uniformity: Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights mentions everyone has the right to freedom of religion including changing their faith. Since it is a state subject, the Centre can frame a model law like Model law on contract farming etc.

Source: Indian Express

Mains Question:

Q. Proponents of the secular brand of Indian nationalism define the nation politically, as a place where all citizens are equal. What are the social implications of this understanding in a globalised world? (10 Marks, 150 Words)