New UP conversion law reinforces curtailment of citizens’ rights

Uttar Pradesh, no stranger to draconian state action against the citizenry, just got a harsher upgrade on a law that was already skating on the thin ice of unconstitutionality.

On July 30, the state legislative assembly passed the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Bill, ramping up the punishment not just for proselytising, but also allowing complaints to be filed by practically anyone in connection with a conversion event.

The original law and the amended version, which will now pass through the legislative council of the bicameral legislature before being sent for gubernatorial assent, are against the spirit, and possibly the letter, of constitutional provisions that guarantee freedom of religion.
Article 25 in Part III of the Constitution, which delineates ‘Fundamental Rights’, provides that ‘… all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion’. There are only two caveats: the state retains the right to regulate financial and secular (non-religious) activities associated with religious practice and initiate social welfare and reform by throwing open places of worship connected to the Hindu religion to all classes of Hindus.
Let us examine the original act first. Passed in 2021, the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act made illegal any conversion by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or any fraudulent means, of marriage. Reconversion remained outside the ambit of the law.
The definitions of terms like allurement and undue influence were so broad as to be applicable to any instance of religious conversion. Given the aggressive programmes of reconversion undertaken by a number of Sangh Parivar entities – under the so-called ghar wapsi movement – it was clear that the law was enacted to prevent non-Hindus from trying in any way to propagate their religion. Article 25 clearly comes into play.
The 2021 act provided that a converted person or any person related to him or her by blood, marriage or adoption could lodge a complaint against a conversion event; the penalty for unlawful conversion or an attempt at it was made punishable by one to five years in jail, plus a fine of no less than ₹15,000. The minimum and maximum jail terms were two and 10 years if the person converted was a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe and the fine no less than ₹25,000. In the case of mass conversions, the penalty was three to 10 years and a fine of no less than ₹50,000.
The amended act makes two significant changes: first, it allows anyone associated with the person converted to file a complaint, rather than relations; second, it raises the punishment to an upper limit of 14 years if the person involved in conversion is associated with ‘foreign’ or ‘illegal’ agencies and 20 years to life if conversion is effected by ‘luring/provoking’ girls or women from Scheduled Castes or Tribes.
It’s not just Article 25 that is contravened, it could be argued from the point of view of the propagation of religion, that Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on the ground of religion, is abridged by both the original and amended laws, as well as Article 19, which guarantees freedom of speech, expression and the right to association.
Minimally, both laws are against the letter and spirit of Article 25. But we should look at the unconstitutionality of the laws from the point of view of the person who seeks to be converted. There is no problem, obviously, with laws against conversion by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion or fraudulent means, except for the fact that the definition of ‘undue’ is stretchable, as is that of ‘fraudulent’.
But let’s take marriage. Who one chooses to marry and how one goes about it are completely personal matters. They are covered by the right to privacy, held to be a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in 2017. If one chooses to marry someone who is not a co-religionist and, in order to do so, convert to the prospective spouse’s religion, it’s a personal matter. Again, covered by the right to privacy, which is a subset of the right to life. No government has the authority to abridge that right.
Let us then take a look at the concept of allurement, which can be taken to encompass ‘inducement’. The definition is broad: Offer of any temptation in the form of gifts or money; employment or free education in a good school run by a religious body; better lifestyles; etc.
Is it not up to an adult citizen to decide for himself or herself whether he or she values a better lifestyle in the form of good employment or material benefits or education for his or her children, on the one hand, or his or her religious affiliation, on the other?
From a commonsense perspective, this choice is covered by the fundamental rights to freedom of conscience and the right to life. It is not for any state agency to issue diktats about whether a person should choose hunger and religious affiliation over material comfort and intergenerational progress in social and material conditions.
This is especially true when the agencies of the state, especially in a poor state like Uttar Pradesh, cannot provide a vast proportion of its people with even the basic conditions of a materially sustainable life, forget those of self-fulfilment in a broader sense. It is for each and every individual to choose.
Then again, quite clearly, the original and amended laws are specifically aimed at two religious minorities: Christians and Muslims. The exclusion of reconversion from the ambit of the law gives the game away. They are of a piece with the criminally aggressive state actions against interfaith marriages – vacuously designated ‘love jihad’.
Finally, the ratcheting up of the punishments and the widening of the reporting regime point to the particular style of governance which typifies the Uttar Pradesh regime headed by chief minister Adityanath. The increased punishments point to the draconian and authoritarian tenor of governance, in which the relationship with citizens, especially those of minority communities, is seen as adversarial. The latter are subjects to be ruled, rather than bearers of rights.
There is also a tendency to whittle down the rule of law. Thus, the encouragement of vigilantism and the constant recourse to extrajudicial actions by the police: Until 2023, the police in Uttar Pradesh carried out 10,713 encounters in which 178 people were killed. That’s more than one encounter every two days. Nevertheless, the law-and-order situation in the state is far from exemplary. According to the latest statistics from the National Crime Records Bureau (for 2022), Uttar Pradesh registered the highest number of murders and crimes against women in absolute numbers, with very high rates in both cases. It came in second for cases of rioting.
The rule of law cannot be implemented either by the descent into a police state, or by the severe abridgement of citizens’ rights. Unfortunately, in Uttar Pradesh, we are witnessing the latter and not the former.
Suhit K Sen is an author and political commentator based in Kolkata. The views expressed are personal
Catch every big hit, every wicket with Crickit, a one stop destination for Live Scores, Match Stats, Infographics & much more. Explore now!
Get Current Updates on India News, Elections 2024, Lok sabha election 2024 voting live , Karnataka election 2024 live in Bengaluru , Election 2024 Date along with Latest News and Top Headlines from India and around the world.