Freedom of religion as enshrined under Article 25 of the Indian constitution doesn’t give the fundamental right to anybody to conduct forceful conversions to a particular religion, the central government yesterday told the Supreme Court.
The apex court while hearing the PIL filed by Ashwini Upadhyay earlier asked the centre to file an affidavit in this regard. The petition mentioned that there are several fraudulent and deceitful conversions in the country and if it goes like that it will not be far that Hindus will be minority. It also noted that the central government has failed to control it and asked the law commission to prepare a report and a bill to restrain “deceitful religious conversion”.
In its affidavit the centre said that it would take the matter seriously and “appropriate steps” will be taken as the central government is aware of the “menace”.
“The right to freedom of religion certainly does not include the right to convert an individual through fraud, deception, coercion, allurement or other such means,” it added.
While mentioning what sort of steps they have yet taken, the centre noted that already nine states have passed anti-conversion bills that include Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Haryana.
Supporting such legal actions at the state level, the affidavit noted, “such enactments are necessary for protecting cherished rights of vulnerable sections of the society including women and economically and socially backward classes.”
It also added that the right to consciousness of all citizens is a responsibility of executive and the legislature and it will protect it anyway. The bench led by Justice M R Shah while hearing the case earlier expressed his concern and said the allegations of forced religious conversion is ‘very serious’ in nature and has the potential to affect the security of the country and the ‘freedom of conscience’ of the citizens.
In its statement the top court said, “It is a very dangerous thing. Everyone has freedom of religion. What is this forceful conversion?” The petitioner also mentioned that there is no district which if free of forceful conversion.
Notably, earlier SC rejected the similar appeal of the petitioner on the ground that Article 25 allows the propagation of religion. However, in its affidavit the centre has said, “The meaning and purport of the word propagate falling under Article 25 of the Constitution was discussed and debated in great detail in the constituent assembly and the inclusion of the said word was passed by the constituent assembly only after the clarification that the fundamental right under Article 25 would not include the right to convert.”
