On Tuesday, the Supreme Court directed multiple States to submit their responses to applications seeking a stay on legislations regulating religious conversions. A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing a batch of petitions questioning the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws enacted in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka. The States were granted four weeks’ time to file replies, with the matter listed for hearing after six weeks.
The controversy first reached the Supreme Court in January 2020, when a bench led by then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha issued notice on the challenge. Subsequently, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind filed a transfer petition to consolidate 21 similar matters pending before six High Courts, including Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. Interim protection has already been granted in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh against specific provisions of their respective Freedom of Religion Acts.
Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, appearing for Citizens for Justice and Peace, stressed the urgency of the matter, highlighting that several States have recently amended these statutes to impose harsher penalties. He argued that while these enactments are titled “Freedom of Religion Acts,” in practice, they restrict religious liberty, disproportionately impact minorities, and directly target interfaith marriages and associated practices. Singh referred to the 2024 amendments to the Uttar Pradesh law, which prescribe a minimum sentence of twenty years, extendable to life imprisonment, for conversion by marriage, along with stringent bail conditions modeled on the “twin test” under the PMLA. The amendments also permit third parties to lodge complaints, which, he submitted, has facilitated harassment through vigilante groups.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the National Federation of Indian Women, also informed the bench that her client has sought an immediate stay on the operation of such laws. The Court was further apprised that the Gujarat High Court (2021) and Madhya Pradesh High Court had stayed the enforcement of certain provisions of their respective legislations. Both States have since approached the Supreme Court challenging these interim directions.
The bench instructed Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the respondent-States, to ensure timely filing of replies. Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, Sanjay Hegde, M.R. Shamshad, and Sanjay Parikh also advanced submissions on behalf of the petitioners. To streamline proceedings, the Court appointed Advocates Srishti Agnihotri and Ruchira Goel as nodal counsel for the petitioners and respondents, respectively, to prepare compilations.
In a related development, the bench de-tagged a public interest litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya, which had sought a pan-India law criminalising conversions through force or deceit. The current proceedings, the Court clarified, are confined to testing the constitutional validity of individual State enactments penalising unlawful religious conversions.
Picture Source :
