Uttar Pradesh’s anti-conversion law made more Stringent

#### Syllabus: Government Policies and Interventions/ Fundamental Rights

#### Source: TH

Context: Recently, the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly amended the 2021 Anti-Conversion Laws, making its provisions more stringent.

Aim of the amendments:

The amendment strengthens the 2021 anti-conversion law to curb alleged “organized and well-planned” activities by “foreign and anti-national elements” accused of influencing demographic changes through unlawful conversions. With 427 cases registered under the original Act between January 2021 and April 2023, the goal is to more effectively address these concerns.

Key amendments Introduced:

Amendment Area | Previous Provisions | New Provisions

1.Increased Penalties | a) Punishment: 1 to 5 years in prison and a ₹15,000 fine. | a) Punishment: 5 to 10 years in prison and a ₹50,000 fine.

b) Specific Cases: For conversions involving minors, women, or SC/ST, | b) Specific Cases: Penalty raised to 5 to 14 years in prison and a fine of ₹1 lakh.

1.New Offenses | a) Not specified. | a) Foreign/Illegal Funds: 7 to 14 years in prison and a ₹10 lakh fine for using illegal funds.

| b) Forced Conversion: 20 years to life imprisonment for conversion through threats, violence, or deceit.

1.Complaint Filing | a) Complaint Filer: Only the aggrieved person or close relatives could file complaints. | a) Complaint Filer: Now, any person can file a complaint.
2.Bail Provisions | a) Cognizable and Non-Bailable: Offenses were bailable. | a) Cognizable and Non-Bailable: All offences are now cognizable and non-bailable.

b) Bail Conditions: Standard bail provisions. | b) Bail Conditions: Twin conditions of bail, requiring the prosecutor’s input and the court’s satisfaction.

Comparison of Anti-Conversion Laws Across States

• States: Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand.

• Notification Requirements: Madhya Pradesh: 60 days. Himachal Pradesh & Uttarakhand: 30 days. Uttar Pradesh: 60 days + police inquiry.

• Madhya Pradesh: 60 days.

• Himachal Pradesh & Uttarakhand: 30 days.

• Uttar Pradesh: 60 days + police inquiry.

• Complaint Filing: Other states: Aggrieved person or family. Uttar Pradesh: Any person can file an FIR.

• Other states: Aggrieved person or family.

• Uttar Pradesh: Any person can file an FIR.

• Bail Conditions: Uttar Pradesh: Strict. Other states: Less stringent.

• Uttar Pradesh: Strict.

• Other states: Less stringent.

• Penalties: Uttar Pradesh: 5 years to life. Other states: 2 to 10 years.

• Uttar Pradesh: 5 years to life.

• Other states: 2 to 10 years.

Key Constitutional Provisions related to religious conversions:

Provisions | Details

Article 25 | Guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. Allows regulation of secular activities associated with religion.

Article 26 | Entitles religious denominations to manage their own religious affairs, subject to public order, morality, and health.

Articles 27-30 | Guarantee the freedom to manage religious affairs, contribute monetarily to religion, and establish and administer educational institutions.

How Has the Supreme Court Interpreted Religious Conversions?

• Stainislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977): Article 25(1) allows the spreading of religion but not converting others.

• Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India (1995) and Lilly Thomas vs. Union of India (2000): Conversions for polygamy are invalid.

• M Chandra vs. M Thangamuthu & Another (2010): Evidence of conversion and acceptance into the new community is required.

• Graham Staines Case (2011): Conversion by force or incitement is unjustifiable.

• Right to Privacy Case (2017): Upholds the right to freedom of religion, with state interference needing to be proportionate.

• Note: No definitive ruling on “propagate” under Article 25 yet.

About Anti-Conversion Laws in India:

• About: Aim to prevent forced, fraudulent, or induced religious conversions.

• Historical Context: Pre-Independence laws restricted conversions; post-Independence central attempts failed.

• State-Level Laws: Enacted in Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and other states, often requiring notification or prohibiting forceful conversions.

• Centre’s Stand: Affirms the right to religion excludes coercive conversions; no special law proposed.

• Challenges: Constitutional concerns, burden of proof on accused, impact on interfaith marriages, misuse and targeting of minorities.

• Way Forward: Define key terms clearly, uphold innocence, standardize regulations, consider a national framework, and promote interfaith dialogue.

Prelims Link:

• About Article 21.

• Article 25.

• What has the Allahabad High Court said in the Salamat Ansari-Priyanka Kharwar case?

Mains Link:

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. Discuss.