The Allahabad High Court recently reaffirmed the purpose of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, in a significant judgment while rejecting the bail application of a man accused under the Act. The court emphasized that the primary objective of this legislation is to ensure religious freedom for all individuals, thereby reflecting and upholding the spirit of secularism in India.
A bench led by Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal made these remarks in the context of a case involving Azeem, who faced multiple charges including those under the anti-conversion law. The case, registered at the Kotwali police station in Budaun, included accusations against Azeem under sections of the Indian Penal Code such as 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation). Additionally, the police invoked the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act in their investigation.
The complaint against Azeem came from a woman who alleged that he had blackmailed her with videos and sexually exploited her. She claimed that he pressured her to marry him, convert to Islam, eat non-vegetarian food, and adopt Muslim attire. According to the complainant, she was coerced into these actions while living with Azeem.
In his bail application, Azeem contended that the woman, who had left his home voluntarily, had fabricated the allegations against him. He argued that their relationship was consensual, and pointed out that the woman had even acknowledged a marriage between them. Azeem also highlighted that the woman’s statement contradicted claims of coercion, noting that she had been asked by her father-in-law to participate in Bakrid sacrificial rites, which she refused.
The government counsel opposed the bail plea, arguing that the evidence pointed to a violation of the anti-conversion law. They asserted that the woman was pressured into converting and that her Nikah ceremony with Azeem occurred under duress, without her genuine consent.
The Allahabad High Court, after evaluating the arguments, upheld the application of the anti-conversion law in this case. The court’s order noted, “The basic object and reason for the enforcement of the Act was to guarantee religious freedom to all persons, which reflects the social harmony and spirit of India. The objective of this Act was to sustain the spirit of secularism in India.”
More Read
The court’s emphasis was on the balance between individual rights and collective freedoms, stating, “The Constitution confers on each individual the fundamental right to profess, practice, and propagate his religion. However, this right does not extend to the collective right to proselytize, as the right to religious freedom belongs equally to the person converting and the individual sought to be converted.”
In rejecting Azeem’s bail application, the court highlighted the importance of enforcing the Act’s provisions. It cited contraventions of Sections 3 and 8 of the Act, which are punishable under Section 5, as key factors in its decision. The court concluded that Azeem failed to establish a case for bail, given the allegations and evidence presented.
This ruling underscores the court’s interpretation of the anti-conversion law as a mechanism to protect religious freedoms and maintain secularism, rather than as a tool for religious coercion. The decision reiterates the legislative intent behind the Act to ensure that religious conversion occurs voluntarily and without undue influence, thereby safeguarding individual freedoms and promoting social harmony.
The UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, has been a subject of considerable debate, with proponents arguing that it protects individuals from forced conversions, while critics contend that it may infringe upon personal freedoms. The Allahabad High Court’s recent judgment provides a significant judicial perspective on the Act’s application, reflecting its broader aim to uphold the constitutional values of secularism and religious freedom in India.
