[UPSC interview prep feed Vol.21] Anti Conversion Law

Topic Discussed: Law against conversion!

Why this debate again?

• Some time back there were these events of mass conversion organized by certain organizations which was seeking to convert back the christians and the muslims back to hinduism.
• This created a national debate on what is the legal stance on this matter and what can be done in the long run?
• There was debate in the Parliament regarding the steps proposed by the govt. and hence the talk on the possibility of an anti-conversion bill.

Legal standing as of now

• Prior to independence, the British did not enact any law. but many Princely States did. For e.g. Rajgarh State Conversion Act 1936, Patna Freedom of religion Act 1942 etc.
• Article 25-30 of our Constitution guarantee citizens freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.
• They also guarantee freedom to manage religious affairs, monetarily contribute to promotion of any religion, and to set up and administer educational institutions.
• In 1954, the Parliament took up a bill in this regard, but was later dropped because of lack of support.
• But meanwhile various states like MP, Odisha, Arunachal Pradesh etc enacted State anti-conversion laws. These laws were intended to stop conversions by force.
• Some of the laws made it compulsory to seek permission from the proper authorities before the conversion.

Standing on offence and Punishment

• These laws mentioned earlier made forced conversion a cognisable offence under sections 295A and 298 of the IPC which pertain to malicious and deliberate intention to hurt the religious sentiments of others.
• They attract a prison term of up to three years and fine.

Related case laws

• In the Chandra Sekaran case (1963), the court observed that a person does not caese to be a HIndu merely because he declares that he has no faith in his religion or stops practicing the religion.
• In the Sarla Mudgal Case(1995), SC held that conversion to Islam was not valid if done only to practice polygamy.

Rev Stanislaus vs Madhya Pradesh, 1977 

• According to the law ministry's opinion forwarded recently to the home ministry, the SC had in a 1977 ruling made it clear that 'anti-conversion law' falls within the purview of 'public order', a 'state' subject as per the seventh Schedule of the Constitution. And hence the Union Govet. cannot legislate on the same.
• "We have no doubt that it is in this sense that the word `propagate' has been used in Article 25(1), for what the Article grants is not the right to convert another person to one's own religion, but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets." 
• A distinction was made between the right to propagate and the right to convert. The former was allowed while the latter was seen as not a part of the fundamental rights. 
• The court prohibited in this rulling conversion by force, fraud or allurement.

Final Analysis

• As per the SC ruling, the states are empowered to have a law on this and hence those affected or having apprehensions should legislate on it.
• And ergo there would be no need to have a pan-India legislation on it which on the matter of fact is not possible as per the SC ruling.
• This issue should not be politicized and the simple fact needs to be understood by all is that the minorities need to be protected and hence this holds relevance.
• Enough safeguards must be drafted to ensure no misuse of these provisions.