Opinion In Uttarakhand, judiciary protects citizens from executive overreach

Laws that carry harsh criminal penalties are justified because they protect citizens from harm and ensure that perpetrators are held accountable for the injury they  cause. It is precisely because they empower the state to take away the rights to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution that they must be framed and deployed with the utmost care and address genuine harm. The Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act (UFRA), passed in 2018 by the BJP state government — its penal provisions were made harsher last year — fails to meet these criteria. As an investigation by this newspaper has shown, the alleged instances of “forced conversions” the law sought to address have been few, and in a vast majority of the cases, they have not stood up to judicial scrutiny.

Of the 62 cases registered under the UFRA in the last seven years, The Indian Express obtained the court records of 51. Of these, only five have completed trials, and in all of them, the accused were acquitted. Seven more were dismissed during trial, and in the vast majority of the remaining cases – about 75 per cent – the accused have been granted bail. It is clear from court records that evidentiary standards have often not been met, consensual relationships criminalised, and there are procedural lapses in investigation and prosecution.

Advertisement

The so-called “anti-conversion” law is prima facie a textbook case of using legislative and executive power to chase a chimaera conjured for ideological ends. But, as the acquittals, dismissals and grants of bail show, a vigilant judiciary can undo some of the damage, intended or otherwise, of a bad law. The trial courts, Uttarakhand High Court and even the Supreme Court have heard citizens’ pleas and granted them bail. While acquitting Vinod Kumar, who was accused of “criticising” Hinduism and praising Christianity to convert people, a trial court in Tehri Garhwal observed, “Every person is free to profess, practise and propagate any religion, so long as in doing so they do not infringe upon the civil rights or any legal rights of another person.” The courts have lived up to their constitutional mandate and protected citizens from executive excess. The Uttarakhand legislature and government must now reflect on why the judiciary needed to do so, and what purpose the UFRA truly serves.