‘UP’s anti-conversion law aims to uphold spirit of secularism': Allahabad HC
Making the observation, a single-judge bench rejected the bail application of a man booked under the stringent Act.
Uttar Pradesh's stringent anti-conversion law aims to 'uphold the spirit of secularism,' a single-judge bench of the Allahabad high court observed on Tuesday, as it rejected the bail plea of a man booked for allegedly forcing a girl to convert to Islam.
Azeem is also accused of sexually assaulting her.
“The Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, is intended to guarantee religious freedom to all individuals, reflecting the nation's social harmony. The purpose of this Act is to uphold the spirit of secularism in India,” Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal said.
While the Constitution grants every individual the right to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, this does not translate into a ‘collective right' to convert others, the bench also noted.
“This is because religious freedom is equally available to both: the person converting and the one being converted,” the judge said.
In his bail plea, Azeem, the accused, claimed having been ‘falsely implicated.’ He also asserted that the girl was in a relationship with him and left her home ‘voluntarily.’
The man, who is booked under Sections 3/5(1) of the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and various sections of the IPC, further stated that the girl was ‘married’ to him, and she had already confirmed their marriage in statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC.
{{/usCountry}}The man, who is booked under Sections 3/5(1) of the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and various sections of the IPC, further stated that the girl was ‘married’ to him, and she had already confirmed their marriage in statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC.
{{/usCountry}}The government lawyer, on the other hand, opposed the bail application under CrPC's Section 164, that mentioned ‘pressure’ to convert to Islam and described a marriage that took place without conversion.
{{/usCountry}}The government lawyer, on the other hand, opposed the bail application under CrPC's Section 164, that mentioned ‘pressure’ to convert to Islam and described a marriage that took place without conversion.
{{/usCountry}}The bench made several important observations, including that of the informant ‘clearly’ saying in her statement under CrPC Section 164, that she was being ‘pressurised’ by the petitioner and his family to ‘accept’ Islam, and being ‘forced’ to perform certain Islamic rituals.
{{/usCountry}}The bench made several important observations, including that of the informant ‘clearly’ saying in her statement under CrPC Section 164, that she was being ‘pressurised’ by the petitioner and his family to ‘accept’ Islam, and being ‘forced’ to perform certain Islamic rituals.
{{/usCountry}}It also noted that the petitioner could not prove that before the ‘marriage,’ an application was filed, as required under Section 8 of the 2021 Act, to facilitate the conversion.
Finally, Justice Agarwal rejected the application, saying that there was a ‘prima facie violation’ of Sections 3 and 8 of the now-amended Act.
(With ANI inputs)
