Introduction
India is the largest democracy in the world and is populated by followers of various religions. Hindu make up most of the population of India. There are many adherents to Islam, Christianity and other religions. There are numerous different religions, and the Indian Constitution protects religious freedom. Significant constitutional provisions on the freedom of religion are included in articles 25 through 28. It is also important to note that although the phrase “religion” is not defined anywhere in the Indian Constitution, judicial declarations have given it broad meaning.
Religion has always been a contentious topic in the nation, capable of igniting emotions that have frequently resulted in public outbursts of violence. The Freedom of Religion Act defines religion conversion as the alleged conversions by force, fraud, deception or inducement.
Right to Religion in India
The Part III of the Indian Constitution affirms religious freedom in India. This right is granted to everyone who dwells in India, not just Indian nationals. Article 25 reads, “Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion,”.
Further, in the case of Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, it was held that Indian State has the authority to control matters related to religion, more specifically religious practices. However, the state is not allowed to intervene with religious matters in and of themselves. Article 25(2)(a) allows the state to control activities that are primarily of an economic, commercial, or political nature even though they may be connected to religious practices. Furthermore, religious denominations now have the freedom to create and maintain charitable and religious institutions, run their own affairs in matters of faith, own and acquire real estate, and manage that real estate according to the law.
The fact that the Indian Penal Code, contains a chapter titled “Of Offences Relating to Religion” that makes acts intended to offend religious feelings of any class by insulting its religious or religious beliefs punishable further demonstrates the importance that the Indian state has placed on religion. So it makes sense that a country with many different religions would take conversion seriously.
Anti-Conversion Laws in Different States in India
The first anti-conversion law in India after the end of colonialism came in 1960 in Orrisa and Madhya Pradesh. Both the 1968 “Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam” and the 1967 “Orissa Freedom of Religion Act” are still in effect.
The forcible conversion was forbidden by the 1968 Orissa Freedom of Religion Act. This statute states that “no person shall use force, inducement, or other fraudulent means to convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religious’ faith to another.” The same act’s Section 4 specifies the penalties for breaking Section 3’s rules.
In its “Freedom of Indigenous Faith Act” from 1978, the State of Arunachal Pradesh approved similar legislation.
On October 2002, the “Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Ordinance” was adopted by the state of Tamil Nadu. Due to widespread opposition, the legislature recently canceled it.
In April 2006, Rajasthan passed a law with a similar prohibition on using coercion, deceit, or allurement to convert people. The law only applies to situations of conversion away from one’s original religion; cases of conversion back to one’s ancestors’ religion are not covered. In 2006, the State of Chhattisgarh established a rule requiring the official’s consent before any religious conversion could take place.
There are various states that are still emerging with a stricter Anti-Conversion Law
Constitutionality of Anti-Conversion Laws
Anti-conversion legislation’s constitutionality cannot be determined solely in light of Article 25. Conscience freedom and the right to profess, practice, and spread one’s religion are both guaranteed by Article 25. Anti-conversion legislation may be permitted or prohibited under the interpretation of Article 25. Differing courts have applied differing interpretations of Article 25.
One of the landmark cases Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, in which a Catholic priest (Father Stainislaus), who had been found guilty of forcible conversion, challenged the Madhya Pradesh anti-conversion law because it was unconstitutional because the state legislature lacked the authority to enact the law. The anti-conversion statute was ruled illegal by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Supreme Court heard the case in an appeal, and the Court stated: “It must be kept in mind that Article 25(1) guarantees freedom of conscience to all citizens, not just adherents of one particular religion, and that, in turn, postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one’s own religion because if a person purposefully undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion, as distinguished from his effort“.
Conclusion
To stop people from being coerced into conversion, anti-conversion laws ought to be passed. Therefore, it is believed that these rules serve to safeguard citizens from immoral conversions. Second, the people’s right to freedom of religion and conscience should not be violated by how Article 25 is construed. Article 25 does grant the right to spread religion, but it does not grant the right to convert someone forcibly. The purpose of Article 25 is to guarantee freedom of religion and conscience. By applying a true and accurate interpretation of Article 25 to the situation, the SC should take decisive measures to stop these unconstitutional conduct.
~ Aaryan Dwivedi, GNLU (Gujarat)
