The high court, in an interim order, had directed the state government not to prosecute under Section 10 of the MP Freedom of Religion Act (MPFRA) adults who solemnize their marriage on their own volition.
All conversions cannot be said to be illegal, the Supreme Court was quoted saying today as it agreed to hear the Madhya Pradesh government's plea challenging a high court order restraining it from prosecuting interfaith couples who get married without informing the district magistrate.
A bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar issued notice in the matter and posted the matter for hearing on February 7.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought a stay on the high court order but the Supreme Court refused to pass any direction. Mehta said that marriage is used for illegal conversions and "we cannot turn a blind eye" to this.
In the past few years, inter-faith marriages and laws related to religious conversions have made noise for all the reasons. The state legislatures in Karnataka and Haryana made laws prohibiting forced religious conversions in 2022. The Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2012 struck down the mandate to seek prior sanction from the district magistrate for religious conversions. However, in 2019, the same provisions we re-enacted and brought into effect more stringently. Seven states, since 2017 have enacted anti-conversion laws in India.
The high court, in an interim order, had directed the state government not to prosecute adults who solemnise their marriage on their own volition under Section 10 of the MP Freedom of Religion Act (MPFRA). The MPFRA forbids conversions by misrepresentation, allurement, use of threat of force, undue influence, coercion, marriage or by any other fraudulent means.
On November 14, the high court observed that Section 10, which makes it obligatory for a citizen desiring (religious) conversion to give a (prior) declaration in this regard to the district magistrate, is "in our opinion ex facie, unconstitutional in the teeth of aforesaid judgments of this court".
The high court's interim direction came after seven petitions challenging provisions of the MPFRA 2021. The petitioners sought interim relief to restrain the state from prosecuting anyone under the same Act.
Meanwhile, the court had granted the state government three weeks of time to file its para-wise reply to the petitions, adding that the petitioners may file rejoinder within 21 days thereafter.
(with PTI inputs)