Hearing on religious conversions shouldn’t be given political colour: SC

Requesting the attorney general, R Venkatramani, to give suggestions in this regard by February 7, a bench of justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar agreed to rename the case as a suo moto proceeding.

The Supreme Court on Monday said that its intervention at the behest of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay on the issue of forced religious conversion should not be given a “political colour” as it clarified that the exercise undertaken by it was not to determine where illegal conversion was taking place but to have corrective measures in place to avoid such incidents.

The plea was filed in the context of an alleged incident early last year in Tamil Nadu where a 17-year-old Thanjavur girl committed suicide after her parents alleged that she was forced by the school to convert. (PTI)

Requesting the attorney general, R Venkatramani, to give suggestions in this regard by February 7, a bench of justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar agreed to rename the case as a suo moto proceeding.

Upadhyay’s petition was opposed by the Tamil Nadu government which termed the petition “politically motivated”. The plea was filed in the context of an alleged incident early last year in Tamil Nadu where a 17-year-old Thanjavur girl committed suicide after her parents alleged that she was forced by the school to convert.

“Do not convert the Court proceeding into something else by bringing politics into the matter. We are concerned with the entire country. Don’t make it political by saying the court is targeting against one state. If forced conversion is not happening in your state, then it is good...This is a very serious matter and we need the assistance of the attorney general,” the bench said.

Senior advocate P Wilson appearing for Tamil Nadu pointed out that religious conversion is a state subject and the petitioner has made several allegations against the state, making it a politically motivated petition as he is a BJP spokesperson. He even pointed out that the state has repealed an anti-conversion law and there is no threat of illegal conversion in the state. “It will be a blot to the Supreme Court if such a petition filed at the behest of a BJP spokesperson is entertained,” Wilson said.

The bench remarked, “Once a matter is brought to the court, we have to consider the matter. We are not concerned with the locus (who brings the matter to court).” It further stated, “Prima facie, the state wants to give it a political colour.”

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for the Centre objected to Tamil Nadu’s opposition and said that the issue involves a matter of national interest. The attorney general later joined the proceedings and agreed to assist in the matter.

Upadhyay was represented by senior advocate Arvind Datar who said, “There is a no provision in the Indian Penal Code to punish acts of forced conversion. The petition has prayed for the matter to be referred to the Law Commission of India.”

The court told Datar, “Legislation is for the legislature to consider. We have to consider the issue in a broad perspective. This is a matter of religious conversion by force or allurement. We are not on whether it is happening or not. But if it is happening, what corrective measures should be taken.”

The bench also agreed to hear Tamil Nadu on its objections while stating that the issue of right to freedom of religion is one aspect and the right to convert is quite distinct. As the name of Upadhyay being shown as the petitioner was also objected to by religious minority organisations and individuals, the bench directed the matter to be listed under a common title -- In Re: Issue of Religious Conversion. The suggestion of the title was made by senior advocate Sanjay Hedge appearing for an intervenor, which received support from the AG as well.

Some Christian organisations alleged that Upadhyay made scurrilous allegations against the community and the same had not been expunged despite the court directing him to do so on an earlier occasion. The bench said, “At present nothing will be expunged. Do not bother about the allegations and counter-allegations.”

The matter will next be heard on February 7.

In November last year, the court sought the Centre’s view on the PIL filed by Upadhyay and said, “If it (the allegation) is found to be correct and true, it is a very serious issue, which may ultimately affect the security of the nation and violate citizens’ right to freedom of conscience and right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion.”

The government had filed a short response indicating that the states of Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Haryana had anti-conversion laws.

“Such enactments (to curb the menace of organised, sophisticated, large-scale illegal conversion) are necessary for protecting cherished rights of vulnerable sections of society including women and economically and socially backward classes,” the government said.

The court last month asked the Centre to prepare a comprehensive response on incidents of forcible conversion and observed, “Everybody has a right to choose religion but not by luring them. If you want to help a particular community, you may do it for charity. That is welcome. But not for any other purpose.”