A 'publicity interest litigation’

The Supreme Court has done well to again strongly uphold the right of an adult person to freely choose, practise and propagate his or her religion, which is a constitutionally guaranteed right. The court has made this assertion in the past also when it dealt with the issue of religious freedom in various ways and in different contexts. It came before the court this time in the form of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against religious conversions, and the court dismissed it as "publicity interest litigation’’ of a "very, very harmful kind’’ which subverted a citizen’s right to freedom of religion. The petition sought directions to Central and state governments to ban black magic, superstition and religious conversions affected through threats, intimidation or bribes. The court ordered the petitioner to withdraw the PIL or risk the imposition of heavy costs. It is strange that conversions were clubbed with black magic and superstitions.

The petition had also sought directions to ascertain the feasibility of appointing a committee to enact a Conversion of Religion Act to check the "abuse of religion’’. The position of the court is also clear from its refusal to accept the petitioner’s plea for permission to make a request to the Centre and the Law Commission on the matter. The court is also set to examine the constitutional validity of a spate of ‘anti-conversion laws enacted recently by states like UP and Madhya Pradesh. These laws are based on the dubious idea of "love jihad’’ which is being used to persecute lovers and couples belonging to Hindu and Muslim faiths and to prevent religious conversions on any ground. The inference, based on many studies, is that the charge of a conspiracy behind "love jihad’’ to convert Hindus to Islam and to make India an Islamic state is false and completely baseless. The "love jihad’’ laws in effect discriminate against Muslims and will encourage vigilante actions against them.

The clear reiteration of the right to religion, which includes choice, practice and propagation, should guide the policies of governments and the thinking and actions of all sections of people. It should be understood that conversion from one religion to another is not wrong and the Constitution gives that right to all citizens. Conversion also assumes the right to propagation. That is why the court said, "There is a reason why the word ‘propagate’ is there in the Constitution.” There is an environment in the country now which has made religious conversion a politically loaded idea and expression, and tries to constrain the right to religion in many ways. The court’s ruling has taken it out of this political context, which is wrong, and placed in back firmly in the realm of Constitutional rights.