LUCKNOW: Amid a flurry of case cropping up and FIRs being registered in Uttar Pradesh under the anti-conversion ordinance, the validity of the newly-promulgated ordinance has been challenged in Allahabad High court through a writ petition.
Moving the court against UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance-2020, advocate Saurabh Kumar has claimed that the ordinance is both morally and constitutionally repugnant.
The petitioner has urged the court to declare the law contrary to the Constitution of India and also direct the authorities not to take any coercive action under it and said that such a law would bring a shadow of criminality over every interfaith marriage.
In fact, the ordinance was promulgated in the state on November 28, this year. The petitioner has allegedly submitted that the ordinance assumed a contradictory position to the latest ruling of the High Court in the Salamat Ansari case which was in line with the expansive meaning given to 'personal liberty' by the Supreme Court of India.
In fact, Section 3 of the ordinance prohibits a person from converting the religion of another person by marriage. Section 4 provides that any person related to the converted person by blood or marriage or adoption can lodge an FIR against conversion.
Section 6 of it enables the courts to declare any marriage as void if it is done for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion or if the unlawful conversion is done for the sole purpose of marriage. Moreover, the ordinance also makes it mandatory to get every conversion scrutinized and certified by the state authorities concerned.
As per the provisions, a person intending conversion is required to give advanced notice of two months (60 days) to the District Magistrate and it will then lead to a police inquiry into the circumstances of conversion. The religious figure affecting the conversion is also required to give prior notification. After the process of conversion, the person concerned has to appear before the DM to seek confirmation. However, the DM will notify the conversion and will invite public objection before confirming it.
The petitioner has allegedly claimed in his submission that those provisions of the ordinance give the state policing powers over an individual's choice of life partner or religion. Thus it was contrary to the fundamental right to individual autonomy, privacy, human dignity, and personal liberty guaranteed by Art 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioner has also objected to Section 12 of the ordinance which reverses the burden of proof on the person who has been instrumental in conversion to prove that the conversion was not effected by misrepresentation, coercion, force, undue influence, etc.