If it may please Your Lordship, may I now proceed to address the 2nd issue?
----------------------------------------------------------Much Obliged Your Lordship
May it please Your Lordship,
The second issue before this Hon'ble Court is whether the requirement of
prior permission and the mandatory inquiry process, as stipulated in
Sections 8 and 9 of the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act,
2023, violates the right to privacy and personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution of Bharat. With the utmost respect, I submit that it does not.
Your Lordship, while the right to privacy is a fundamental right, as affirmed in
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, it is not absolute. Can any right, however
fundamental, exist without reasonable restrictions, especially when public
welfare and order are at stake? As recognized in A.K. Gopalan v. State of
Madras, personal liberty under Article 21 can be subjected to reasonable
restrictions for the protection of society at large. The inquiry process under the
said Act, Your Lordship, serves a legitimate state interest by ensuring that
religious conversions are voluntary and not induced by fraud or coercion.
Should the state not have the power to protect its citizens from being
manipulated into such life-altering decisions?
Moreover, in Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court
emphasized the state's duty to regulate conversions to ensure that they are free
from force or undue pressure. The inquiry process, as detailed in the present
Act, is precisely such a safeguard—ensuring that conversions are genuine while
preventing exploitation. The Act does not interfere with personal belief or
dictate what one should follow; it simply ensures that the conversion is made
out of free will. As in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, this Hon'ble Supreme
Court has unequivocally held that the right to freedom of religion under Article
25 is not absolute and can be reasonably restricted to preserve public order and
morality.
Your Lordship, the Act’s provisions do not pry into intimate aspects of one’s
personal life. Instead, they merely introduce a minimal regulatory framework to
verify that the conversion is voluntary, as outlined in Sarangarh v. State of
Chhattisgarh, which upheld similar notice requirements for religious
conversions.
In conclusion, Your Lordship, Sections 8 and 9 of the Act strike a
constitutionally valid balance between individual rights and the state’s duty to
prevent exploitation. The requirement of prior permission and a mandatory
inquiry serves to protect vulnerable individuals without infringing on the core of
the right to privacy or personal liberty. If the Act were to be invalidated, Your
Lordship, who would safeguard against fraudulent conversions?
I respectfully submit that this Hon'ble Court uphold the validity of Sections 8
and 9 of the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2023, in the
interest of public welfare, protection of vulnerable individuals, and the
preservation of personal liberty in its true sense.
All of which is humbly submitted.
If it may please Your Lordship, may I now proceed to address the 4 th issue?
-----------------------------------------------------------Much Obliged Your
Lordship
May it please Your Lordship,
I now move to the fourth and final issue before this Hon'ble Court: To what
extent can the State impose restrictions on religious conversions to prevent
forced conversions, and whether such restrictions justify limitations on the
right to convert and the right to marry?
Your Lordship, while the Constitution of Bharat under Article 25 guarantees the
fundamental right to freedom of religion, it is crucial to emphasize that this right
is not absolute. Article 25(2) explicitly permits the State to impose reasonable
restrictions in the interests of public order, morality, and health. In this context,
the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2023, serves as a
necessary safeguard to ensure that conversions are free, voluntary, and not
induced through coercion or deceit.
Would it be reasonable for the State to stand idle while vulnerable individuals
are manipulated into conversions through force, fraud, or undue influence?
Certainly not, Your Lordship. The Act under Section 3, which prohibits
conversions through allurement or misrepresentation, serves a compelling State
interest in preventing exploitation, particularly of those in economically
disadvantaged or socially vulnerable positions. It aims to preserve individual
autonomy while maintaining societal harmony.
Further, Section 8 of the Act, which requires a notification to the District
Magistrate, is not a form of State overreach, but rather a mechanism to ensure
transparency and prevent coercion. Section 9, mandating an inquiry into the
legitimacy of the conversion, is designed to protect individuals such as
Petitioner No. 1, who, as per the claims of his own parents, was under undue
pressure to convert for the purposes of marriage.
Your Lordship, in the case of Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018), the
Supreme Court of India affirmed that the right to marry is protected under
Article 21, but also stated that this right should not be interfered with unless
there is clear evidence of fraud or coercion. Here, the scrutiny imposed by the
Act ensures that conversions preceding marriages are genuine and not mere
facades, and it directly addresses the allegations in this case, where employment
promises and familial pressure were factors influencing Petitioner No. 1's
conversion.
Further, in Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra (1990), the Bombay High Court
acknowledged the significance of family statements in assessing the
voluntariness of religious conversions. In this case, the parents of Petitioner
No. 1 have raised valid concerns about coercion and undue influence from
Petitioner No. 2’s family. Would it not be in the public interest to scrutinize
such cases to prevent exploitation?
Your Lordship, this Act does not impose a blanket restriction on interfaith
marriages. It merely ensures that conversions preceding such marriages are free
from coercion and allurement. The provisions of the Act align with international
standards, including Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights
and Article 8 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, which
similarly prohibit coercion in matters of faith.
To conclude, Your Lordship, the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of
Religion Act, 2023 strikes a careful balance between the individual's right to
religious freedom and the State's duty to protect vulnerable individuals from
manipulation. The restrictions it imposes are reasonable, constitutionally valid,
and aligned with both domestic and international human rights norms.
I humbly submit that this Act serves the public interest by ensuring that
conversions, particularly in the context of interfaith marriages, are genuinely
voluntary and free from external pressures. I respectfully urge this Hon'ble
Court to uphold the constitutionality of the Act.
May We, with the permission of Your Lordship, proceed to the prayer?
--------------------------------------------------------------- Much Obliged Your
Lordship
May it please Your Lordship,
In light of the facts presented, the issues raised, the arguments advanced, and
the authorities cited, we, on behalf of the Respondent, humbly pray that this
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Bharat be pleased to:
A) Uphold the constitutionality of the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of
Religion Act, 2023, recognizing that the Act serves a compelling state interest
in regulating religious conversions to prevent misrepresentation, coercion,
undue influence, and allurement.
B) Affirm that the requirements of prior permission and inquiry, as mandated by
the Act, are reasonable safeguards that do not infringe upon the Fundamental
Rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution, but instead
serve to protect the autonomy and dignity of individuals seeking to exercise
their right to religious freedom.
C) Maintain the burden of proof on the individual seeking conversion, ensuring
that the State can continue to fulfill its duty to protect citizens, particularly
vulnerable individuals, from coercive or fraudulent practices.
D) Dismiss the writ petition filed by Alex Sharma (Jordan Singh) and Taylor
Singh, and uphold the findings of the District Magistrate, affirming the denial
of permission for the conversion based on credible and substantial evidence of
coercion and undue influence.
We further pray that Your Lordship be pleased to pass any other order as may be
deemed fit in the interests of justice, equity, and good conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
