Ballot vs belief

With the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) polls approaching, the debate over whether the anti-conversion law should be repealed, retained or just amended has resurfaced with renewed urgency. 

On February 3, the Supreme Court of India took up a petition filed by the National Council of Churches in India (NCCI), challenging the legality of anti-conversion laws and seeking a stay on them. The court issued notice to the Union government and 12 states. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi is hearing the matter and has directed the respondents to reply within four weeks.

In 2022, the then BJP government enacted the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, popularly known as the anti-conversion law. Since the Siddaramaiah-led Congress government assumed office, it has repeatedly claimed to repeal the Act. The government has now completed 1,000 days in office and even celebrated the feat. Yet the law remains in force, despite repeated appeals from the Christian community.

According to the 2011 Census, Karnataka is home to 11.43 lakh Christians, of whom 5,04,863 live in Bengaluru. In the upcoming GBA polls, Christian votes are significant for the ‘secular’ Congress. Yet the party appears hesitant to withdraw the Act. The BJP, on the other hand, insists on strengthening it. Congress seems caught in a dilemma: repealing the law may consolidate Christian support, but it risks giving the BJP an opportunity to mobilise Hindu votes.

Unlike in previous decades, Congress can no longer assume that Christians constitute an unflinching voter base. The community is showing signs of political awakening and assertion. In local body elections in Dakshina Kannada and elsewhere, sections of Christian voters have reportedly shifted away from the Congress. The community is gearing up for a massive protest against the Congress seeking the repeal of the anti-conversion law.

The BJP and the broader Sangh Parivar ecosystem argue that anti-conversion laws are necessary to prevent religious conversion through force, deceit and influence. They contend that repealing such laws would allow proselytising without adequate safeguards. 

The idea of restricting religious conversion is not new. In the 1930s and 40s, several princely states enforced laws to prevent such actions by missionaries. However, in the colonial era, such laws were localised, and their reach and enforcement were also strict.

In post-independence India, Article 25 of the Constitution guaranteed freedom to practise, propagate and spread religion. Despite this, anxieties around conversion persisted for socio-political reasons, prompting several states to introduce anti-conversion laws.

Since the previous BJP government enforced the anti-conversion law, there have been several atrocities against Christians on the pretext of conversion. Innocent Christians have been victimised, since the Act places the onus of proving that a conversion is not forced on the accused and not the complainant. Karnataka’s anti-conversion law is not a neutral, regulatory law. It considers minorities as wrongdoers.

As per available data, there have been 13 cases of conversion accusations. There have been 11 cases of attacks on places of worship and nine cases of atrocities against women. In Uttar Pradesh, where the law is in force, the Christian community is suffering heavily.

Apart from Christian community leaders, human rights activists, legal experts with social concern and social justice adherents have contended that anti-conversion laws are clearly against the fundamental right of freedom of religion (article 25). Such laws are being misused to target minorities. Critics cite data to prove that such laws intend to confront minorities under the pretext of law, hence they are dangerous.

The anti-conversion law hinders the constitutional right of freedom of religion. Articles 25, 21 and 14 grant the right to practise, propagate and spread religion. Anti-conversion laws, especially when they mandate prior permission, may violate these rules and hinder voluntary conversions, according to experts. It’s important to note that the law can be misused and even used to issue threats. According to one line of argument, withdrawing anti-conversion laws is the only constitutionally honest way.

The Congress has indicated that the law could be amended rather than repealed. But an amendment will legalise its flawed premise. Repeal would reaffirm Karnataka’s commitment to constitutional freedoms, restore minority confidence and curb potential misuse by law enforcement. Thus, the law must not be amended but completely dropped.

B R Ambedkar had believed that choosing a religion was a man’s fundamental right and personal choice. He rejected the idea that a person should be committed to the religion of his forefathers, even if the religion fails to establish dignity, equality and justice. When looked at from his perspective, the anti-conversion law is unconstitutional.

(The writer is a senior advocate and chairperson of the social justice wing of the Congress)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.