Read Time: 10 minutes

Defending ‘The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021’, the State Government has told the Allahabad High Court that "Marriage has been used as an instrument to convert an individual against their will and this is the malady which this Act seeks to remedy."

In the affidavit responding to a clutch of public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the Act, State Government has submitted before the bench of Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Piyush Agrawal that marriage has increasingly been used as an instrument of coercion to convert individuals from one religion to the other which is amply illustrated by the sheer number of FIRs that have been filed in this regard.

The government has said that the petitioners’ assertion that no official data is available to substantiate the claim that the social fabric is threatened by [forcible conversions] is fallacious, misconceived. “There is ample data in public record which shows that forcible conversions have in fact created a fear psychosis which is across the entire State, which in turn has warranted the need for such legislation,” the government has stated.

The affidavit also reads that the Act, otherwise known as Uttar Pradesh 'Anti-Love' Jihad Law, does not subject the decision to marry to the consent of the family or society, it merely ensures that they have the power to file their objections if they have reason to believe any foul play.

Stressing that this is the least restrictive measure available with the State, the government has said that this Act ensures that the decision of an individual to convert to another religion is theirs and theirs alone.

Government has stated that in a situation where one marries a person from a different religion by choice but is still deprived of the due benefits that she/he should’ve received, unless and until conversion takes place, this conversion will be against the choice of that individual.

“Thus, there is a conflict of interest which is an issue addressed by means of the instant legislation wherein the inter fundamental right of the individual are safeguarded,” the affidavit reads.

Significantly, referring to the cases of a Hindu wishing to marry a Muslim, the Affidavit states,

“Even though a Hindu woman wishes not to give up her faith but she will have to give up her faith in order to enter into a valid marriage and accept Islam as her faith. This will amount to forceful conversion. The position remains the same if a Hindu boy wants to marry a Muslim girl. Hindu boy will have to accept Islam.”

Calling this practice a loss of dignity, the affidavit thus reads, “The diminished autonomy of the coerced individual does not let them be a part of a relationship or religion which they would not voluntarily choose…..Forcible conversions strike at the heart of personal autonomy and individual agency.”

Further stressing, “No fundamental right is absolute,” the State Government has stated that so far as intra fundamental rights are concerned, these fundamental rights are the rights of an individual vis-à-vis rights of the community.

The government has also highlighted that it has been well settled that the community interest will always prevail over the individual interest, and has said that “when there is fear psychosis spread in the community at large and the community itself is endangered and succumbs to the pressure resulting in forceful conversion, under the said circumstances it becomes necessary that the interest of the community as a whole requires protection and no microanalysis of individual interest can be looked into.”

Therefore, stating that when these decisions are effectuated by fraud, undue influence, or misrepresentation etc., it dehumanizes the individual's life, the government has said that if the petitioners do believe that this harm is not direct or substantial enough for society, it would be the moment that numbs the living and breathing transformative Constitution.

Further, pointing out that the impugned Act is of identical nature to the Laws that are in existence at least in eight States of the country besides the State of Uttar Pradesh, the government has stressed that in the neighboring countries too, such laws have been framed like in Nepal, Myanmar, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and in Pakistan for the issue of forced conversion is being faced throughout the Indian subcontinent. 

Countering the plea para-wise, the government in its reply has lastly said that the petitioners seemed to be getting motivated by social media propagandas of 'Ghar Wapasi' rather than sticking to legal issues and are busing the process of law by the instant PIL and using the same as a tool for publicity.

Therefore, a heavy costs has also been pleaded by the government to be imposed upon the petitioners for making unnecessary assertions not based upon any facts.

Case Title: AALI vs. State of Uttar Pradesh