Uttar Pradesh’s Anti-Conversion Law

17-08-2024

Recent Context

On July 30, 2024, the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly approved the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2024.
- This Bill significantly tightens the original 2021 anti-conversion law.
- Since 2017, several states have enacted or revised anti-conversion laws to curb religious conversions via marriage, deception, coercion, or inducement.
- Significantly, these laws are purportedly designed to address "love jihad" — a concept promoted mainly by Hindutva groups, suggesting that inter-faith marriages may involve forced conversions.

Why was the amendment proposed?

According to the Bill’s statement of reasons, the existing legislation needed to be made “as stringent as possible” due to the alleged “organized and well-planned” involvement of “foreign and anti-national elements and organizations” in demographic changes through unlawful conversion.
It further claims that the penal provisions of the 2021 Act were “not sufficient to prevent and control religious conversion and mass conversion” in cases involving minors, disabled individuals, mentally challenged persons, women, and those belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
While the constitutional validity of the law is being challenged in the Supreme Court, state government data show that between January 1, 2021, and April 30, 2023, 427 cases were registered under the Act, leading to 833 arrests.

About Religious Conversions

Religious conversion refers to the act of abandoning adherence to one religious denomination and affiliating with another. It involves adopting the beliefs associated with a particular religion while excluding others.

Constitutional Rights

According to various judicial pronouncements, forceful religious conversion is deemed to violate fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, including:

Article 14 (Equality before the Law): Ensures that all individuals are treated equally and prohibits discrimination.
Article 21 (Right to Life): Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the freedom to make personal choices, such as religious beliefs.
Article 25 (Freedom of Conscience & Freedom to Profess, Practice & Propagate Religion): Protects an individual's right to freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate their religion.

Important Judgments

Stanislaus v/s State of MP, 1977
Constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled that Article 25(1) doesn’t give the right to convert but only the right to spread tenets of one’s own religion. Thus, only voluntary conversions are valid in India.
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.,2018
Popularly known as Hadiya (Akhila Ashokan) case (Media promoted as “love jihad” case), Supreme court awarded that every person has the right to marry and enter into a legal contract if he/ she attains the age of majority without any interference.

Provisions related to penalties

This Bill increased the jail terms and fines for all offenses under the law.
- Previously, a person convicted of unlawful conversion faced a minimum prison term of 1 year and a maximum of 5 years, along with a fine of Rs 15,000.
Under the amended Bill, the minimum imprisonment for such offenses has been raised to 5 years and the maximum to 10 years, with the fine increased to Rs 50,000.
For unlawful conversions involving a minor, a woman, or a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe communities, the penalty has been increased from a prison term of 2-10 years to 5-14 years, and the minimum fine has been raised from Rs 25,000 to Rs 1 lakh.
The amendment also introduces two new categories of offenses.
- First, a newly added sub-section to Section 5 imposes a minimum prison term of 7 years, which can extend up to 14 years, for anyone who secures “foreign” funds or funds from “illegal institutions” for the purpose of unlawful conversion. In addition, they will be required to pay a fine of Rs 10 lakh.
- Second, if the accused causes any person to fear for their life or property, assaults or uses force, promises or instigates marriage, conspires or induces any minor, woman, or person to traffic or otherwise sells them, they shall face a minimum imprisonment of 20 years, which can be extended to life imprisonment. Courts are also required to award appropriate compensation to victims, to be paid by the accused.
- This compensation can be up to Rs 5 lakh and is in addition to any fines imposed.

Procedure of criminal complaint

Under Section 4 of the original Act, only "any aggrieved person" or "his/her parents, brother, sister, or any other person who is related to him/her by blood, marriage, or adoption" was authorized to file a criminal complaint for unlawful conversion.
However, despite this limitation, police authorities were reportedly allowing FIRs to be lodged by right-wing activists and other unauthorized third parties, including elected local representatives.
This led the Allahabad High Court to clarify multiple times that such complaints can only be filed by the aggrieved person or their immediate family.
However, the amendment now legitimizes third-party complaints.
The revised provision allows “any person” to file an FIR for any violation of the Act, as outlined in Chapter 13 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the new law governing criminal procedure.
This chapter deals with the powers of police officers to investigate upon receiving information about the commission of a crime.

Provisions related to bail

The amendment introduces strict "twin conditions of bail," similar to those in laws like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
All offenses related to unlawful conversion are now cognisable and non-bailable, and can only be adjudicated by a sessions court or higher judicial forums.
Under the revised Section 7, an accused cannot be granted bail without first giving the public prosecutor an opportunity to oppose the bail application.
If the public prosecutor objects, the sessions court may grant bail only if "there are reasonable grounds for believing that [the accused] is not guilty of such offense" and that they are unlikely to commit any crime if released on bail.
This reverse burden of proof on the accused makes the provision extremely stringent, effectively making it almost impossible for anyone to obtain bail until the trial is completed.

Other State’s Anti-Conversion Laws

Odisha (1967): First state to enact a law restricting religious conversions, prohibiting conversions by force or fraudulent means.
Madhya Pradesh (1968): Introduced the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, which requires notification to the District Magistrate for any conversion activities, with penalties for non-compliance.
Arunachal Pradesh (1978)
Gujarat (2003)
Chhattisgarh (2000 and 2006)
Rajasthan (2006 and 2008)
Himachal Pradesh (2006 and 2019)
Tamil Nadu (2002-2004)
Jharkhand (2017)
Uttarakhand (2018)
Uttar Pradesh (2021)
Haryana (2022)

Legal Challenges

High-profile cases and judicial reviews have drawn significant attention to issues surrounding anti-conversion laws. Some of these cases have challenged the constitutionality and fairness of these laws, leading to legal battles that examine the boundaries of religious freedom and individual rights.
Courts have occasionally intervened to address concerns about the misuse of these laws or to clarify their application, highlighting ongoing debates about their impact and effectiveness.

Next Step

The constitutional validity of the amendment is expected to be challenged in the Supreme Court.
A batch of petitions challenging the original legislation and similar anti-conversion laws enacted by BJP-ruled states are already pending before a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud.
However, these petitions have not been scheduled for hearing since April 2023, leaving them unresolved.
Meanwhile, in May, while hearing a separate case challenging an unlawful religious conversion charge, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra noted that certain provisions of the 2021 Act might contravene Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion.