Madhya Pradesh law requirement on declaration before conversion is illegal, says HC

Citing judgments, the Jabalpur bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Prakash Chandra Gupta, in an interim order Thursday, said, “…a strong prima facie case is made out by the petitioners for grant of interim protection in relation to marriage of two adult citizens on their volition and against any coercive action for violation of Section 10 of the Act of 21.”

“Section 10 makes it obligatory for a citizen desiring conversion to give a declaration in this regard to the District Magistrate which in our opinion ex facie, unconstitutional in the teeth of… judgments of this Court. Thus, till further orders, respondent shall not prosecute the adult citizens if they solemnize marriage on their own volition and shall not take coercive action for violation of Section 10 of Act of 21,” the bench said.

It was hearing seven petitions by activists and social workers who sought a stay on the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 stating that it was in contrast to Fundamental Rights under the Constitution and granted unbridled and arbitrary powers to authorities.

The Madhya Pradesh Freedom to Religion Ordinance was promulgated in January 2021 and the Freedom to Religion Act, 2021 came into effect in March 2021.

Section 3 of the Act prohibits conversion from one religion to another by use of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any other fraudulent means or by promise of marriage. Those found in violation are punishable with a minimum prison term of one year to a maximum of 10 years in case of mass conversion.

Section 10 of the Act states that anyone who desires to convert shall give a declaration to that effect 60 days prior to such conversion to the District Magistrate. According to sub-section (2), any religious priest who intends to organise conversion has to give a 60 days prior notice to the DM. Those found violating sub-section 2 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term varying from three to five years along with a fine.

Citing judgments of the Supreme Court and High Court, the Jabalpur bench said, “In the judgment of Supreme Court in Lata Singh (supra) (supra refers to citation of a court decision previously mentioned), Laxmibai Chandaragi B (supra) it was recognised that marriage lies within a core zone of privacy of a citizen which is inviolable. Right to marry a person of choice is held to be integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. In K S Puttaswamy (supra), the nine-judge Bench has drawn the curtains on this aspect by holding that family, marriage, procreation and sexual reorientation are all integral to the dignity of the individual.”

“An individual has a fundamental right to decide the form of expression which includes his right to remain silent. Silence postulates a realm of privacy. The right to remain silent includes the right to decide the preferences on various aspects of life including the faith one will espouse. The Constitutional Right to the Freedom of Religion under Article 25 has implicit within it the ability to choose a faith and the freedom to express or not express those choices to the world,” it said.

“The HP High Court in case of Evangelical Fellowship of India (supra) declared the offending statutory provision as illegal wherein a citizen was required to inform the authorities about his wish to change the religion,” it said.