The Supreme Court on Monday said it would hear on February 3 a batch of pleas challenging controversial State laws regulating religious conversions due to interfaith marriages.
A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala noted that a transfer plea was mentioned in the morning. “We can list it, issue notice and hear it together. The transfer petition will also be numbered by then. The Attorney General can also examine. We will hear all on Friday,” the bench said.
Attorney General R Venkataramani submitted that these are State legislations that have been challenged before the apex court and the High Courts concerned should hear the cases. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had challenged the locus standi of activist Teesta Setelwad’s NGO.
The apex court had, on January 6, 2021, agreed to examine certain new and controversial laws of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand regulating religious conversions due to interfaith marriages.
The Uttar Pradesh law relates to not only interfaith marriages but all religious conversions and lays down elaborate procedures for anyone who wishes to convert to another religion.
The Uttarakhand law entails a two-year jail term for those found guilty of religious conversion through “force or allurement”.
The allurement can be in the form of cash, employment or material benefits. The petitions said these legislations violate articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution as those empower the State to suppress an individual’s personal liberty and freedom to practise the religion of his choice.
Questioning the locus standi of activist Setalwad’s NGO, “Citizens for Justice and Peace”, in challenging State laws regulating religious conversions due to interfaith marriages, the the Centre alleged that the NGO allows its name to be used “at the behest of some selected political interest”.
The Centre also submitted that the NGO was is guilty of collecting huge funds by exploiting the agonies of riot-affected people. “I State and submit that the petitioner herein purports to act in public interest, in which it selectively takes up public causes for the objects and intents other than public interest….. submit that from a series of judicial proceedings, it is now established that the petitioner no.1 allows its name to be used through its two office-bearers at the behest of some selected political interest and also earns out of such activity,” an affidavit filed by Brahma Shankar, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), said.