The story so far: The Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly on July 30 passed the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2024, significantly altering the original 2021 anti-conversion law by making its provisions more stringent, and critics say, susceptible to misuse. Since 2017, multiple BJP-ruled states have enacted or amended anti-conversion laws to restrict religious conversions through marriage, deceit, coercion, or enticement. These measures are ostensibly aimed at combating “love jihad” — a theory, primarily promoted by Hindutva groups, which alleges that inter-faith marriages are sites of potential forced conversions.
Also Read: Medieval-minded: On anti-conversion law in Uttar Pradesh, its amendments
Why was the amendment proposed?
According to the Bill’s statement of reasons, the existing legislation needed to be made “as stringent as possible” owing to the alleged “organised and well-planned” involvement of “foreign and anti-national elements and organizations” in demographic change due to unlawful conversion. It further asserts that the penal provisions of the 2021 Act were “not sufficient to prevent and control religious conversion and mass conversion” in cases involving minors, disabled individuals, mentally challenged persons, women, and those belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
While the constitutional validity of the law itself is under challenge before the Supreme Court, State government data reveal that between January 1, 2021, and April 30, 2023, 427 cases were registered under the Act, resulting in 833 arrests.
Does it enhance penalties?
The government has increased the jail terms and fines for all offences under the law. Earlier, a person convicted of unlawful conversion faced a minimum prison term of 1 year and a maximum of 5 years, along with a fine of Rs 15,000. Under the amended Bill, the minimum imprisonment for such offences has been raised to 5 years, and the maximum to 10 years. Additionally, the fine has been increased to Rs 50,000.
For unlawful conversions involving a minor, a woman, or a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe communities, the penalty has been increased from a prison term of 2-10 years to 5-14 years. The minimum fine has also been raised from Rs 25,000 to Rs 1 lakh.
The Bill has also strengthened the penalties for mass conversions. Previously, those convicted faced a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 10 years in prison. Now, the minimum sentence has been raised to 7 years, and the maximum to 14 years, with the fine also doubled to Rs 1 lakh.
The amendment also introduces two new categories of offences. First, the newly added sub-section to Section 5 mandates a minimum prison term of 7 years, extendable to 14 years, for anyone who secures “foreign” funds or funds from “illegal institutions” for the purpose of unlawful conversion. They will also be required to pay a fine of Rs 10 lakh. Second, if the accused causes any person to fear for his life or property, assaults or uses force, promises or instigates marriage, conspires or induces any minor, woman or person to traffic or otherwise sells them, they shall be punished with a minimum 20 years imprisonment, which can be extended to life imprisonment. Courts are also required to award appropriate compensation to victims, to be paid by the accused. This compensation can be up to Rs 5 lakh and is in addition to any fines imposed.
Who can register a criminal complaint?
Under Section 4 of the original Act, only “any aggrieved person” or “his/her parents, brother, sister, or any other person who is related to him/her by blood, marriage or adoption” was authorised to file a criminal complaint for unlawful conversion. Despite this restriction, police authorities were reportedly allowing FIRs to be lodged at the behest of right-wing activists and other unauthorised third parties, including elected local representatives. This prompted the Allahabad High Court to clarify on more than one occasion that such complaints can be filed solely by the aggrieved person or their kin.
However, the amendment now grants legitimacy to such third-party complaints. The revised provision stipulates that “any person” can file an FIR related to any violation of the Act in the manner provided under chapter 13 of the new law governing criminal procedure, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The chapter deals with the powers of police officers to investigate upon receipt of information regarding the commission of a crime.
What about provisions for bail?
The amendment introduces stringent “twin conditions of bail” identical to those under statutes such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. All offences related to unlawful conversion are now cognisable and non-bailable and can only be adjudicated upon by a sessions court or higher judicial forums.
Under the revised Section 7, an accused cannot be granted bail without first providing the public prosecutor an opportunity to contest the bail application. Further, if the public prosecutor opposes such a plea, the sessions court may grant bail only if “there are reasonable grounds for believing that [the accused] is not guilty of such offence” and that he or she is unlikely to commit any crime if released on bail. The reverse burden of proof on the accused makes the provision draconian, virtually rendering it impossible for anyone to obtain bail until the completion of the trial.
Also Read:How the UAPA is wrecking lives
How does it compare to other anti-conversion laws?
In addition to Uttar Pradesh, States such as Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, and Arunachal Pradesh have had anti-conversion laws for decades, while Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Uttarakhand have implemented such laws more recently. In 2022, the BJP-led government introduced the Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act in Karnataka which was eventually scrapped by the Congress-led government last year. The Maharashtra government too has expressed interest in enacting such a law.
Most of these laws require individuals intending to convert, or those facilitating conversions, to notify the government. In Madhya Pradesh, the law mandates a 60-day prior “declaration of the intention to convert” to the District Magistrate for the conversion to be valid. Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand require a 30-day prior notice. In contrast, Uttar Pradesh not only mandates a 60-day notice but also requires the Magistrate to conduct a police inquiry to ascertain the true intent behind the conversion.
Another notable distinction is that other States confine the filing of FIRs to the aggrieved individual or their immediate family—such as parents or siblings— thus excluding third parties with potential vested interests from initiating any legal action. In Madhya Pradesh, even guardians must secure court approval before lodging a police complaint. Additionally, in Himachal Pradesh, prosecution cannot be initiated without the prior sanction of an officer not below the rank of a sub-divisional magistrate.
The “twin conditions of bail” which impose a high threshold for securing interim release, are also absent in certain other State laws. However, States like Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand mandate a reverse burden of proof, requiring the accused to prove that no unlawful conversion has taken place. With respect to the quantum of punishment, none of the other State laws prescribe life imprisonment; instead, prison sentences vary between 2 to 10 years.
What happens next?
The constitutional validity of the amendment is likely to be challenged before the top Court. A batch of petitions challenging the parent legislation and other similar anti-conversion laws enacted by BJP-ruled States are already pending adjudication before a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud. However, these petitions have not been listed for hearing since April 2023, effectively leaving them in limbo.
Meanwhile, in May, while hearing a separate case seeking the quashing of an unlawful religious conversion charge, a Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra had remarked that certain provisions of the 2021 Act appear to contravene Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of religion.
Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.