BENGALURU: Acting on a public interest litigation, challenging the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Ordinance, 2022 on the ground that it demonstrates intolerance towards the religious choices of people which is an attack on the secular fabric that holds Indian democracy together, the Karnataka High Court on Friday issued a notice to the state government and granted it four weeks to file objections.
Hearing the petition by New Delhi-based Evangelical Fellowship of India and All-Karnataka United Christian Forum for Human Rights, questioning the anti-conversion law promulgated by the state government, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice JM Khazi issued notices to the home department secretary and law department principal secretary.
The petitioners contend the ordinance is void since it is repugnant to the central legislation -- the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Special Marriages Act, 1954 -- and legislation that provides for the cancellation of financial grants or aid to various organisations, and any violation is a cognisable and non-bailable offence.
“The provisions of the ordinance impinge upon an individual’s right to freedom of choice, right to life and liberty as well as the right to freedom of religion and allows an unnecessary intrusion in the lives of people who have their autonomy compromised by the state. When the individuals have to approach the District Magistrate to validate their conversion for the purpose of marriage or otherwise, it violates their right to privacy and disempowers individuals,” it claimed.
The petitioners stated that the ordinance violates Art 21 as it empowers the state to suppress personal liberty. It also mandates a series of complicated procedures before and after conversion. It states the government has to be taken into confidence to “ensure” that the act is an informed and voluntary decision by the individual, they argued. The ordinance is definitely not an appropriate solution. The right to convert is manifested in Article 25. However, the ordinance impinges upon this right and also on the rights of minorities under Article 30, 19(1)(g) and 19(1)(a), they alleged.