On 1 July 2024, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court in a bizarre comment said, “if this process (religious conversion) is allowed to be carried out, the majority population of this country would be in minority one day, and such religious congregation should be immediately stopped where the conversion is taking place and changing religion of citizen of India.” The single- bench judge was hearing the bail plea of one Kailash booked under Section 3/5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, said that Article 25 of the Constitution of India does not provide for religious conversion but only provides freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion. The Court also noted that in several cases unlawful activity of conversion of people of SC/ST castes and other castes including economically poor persons into Christianity is being done at rampant pace throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court on expected lines, denied bail to the accused.

Exactly a week later, on 9 July, the same judge Agarwal sang the exact same tune, denying bail to yet another accused in a case of alleged ‘illegal conversion’. He observed that the right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be constituted as the right to convert others! He once again categorically stated that, “The Constitution confers on each individual the fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate his religion. However, the individual right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be extended to construe a collective right to proselytize; the right to religious freedom belongs equally to the person converting and the individual sought to be converted.”

Interestingly, several BJP- ruled States in the country have enacted anti-conversion laws (Rajasthan may be the next State to do so). This is clearly a ploy, a bogey, to defocus from more serious issues which plague the country today! Without any statistics to defend his arguments, Justice Agarwal is very frightened that “the majority population will become a minority in India one day” Even if his funda ‘fears’ are true, he will first need to answer the question WHY? Why are the people of India embracing Christianity or for that matter, any other religion?

Instead of ‘criminalising conversions’, the learned judge should take a cue from Dr B. R. Ambedkar and his conversion to Buddhism! Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism was not born of fantasy nor was it a sudden overnight decision. He had spent over twenty years studying various religions and discerning which one would be most suited for him and the down-trodden masses for whom he spoke. Addressing a huge gathering of Mahars in Bombay in May 1936 he transparently shared his ideas on conversion and why he considered it to be the best and only route towards emancipation. He unequivocally and courageously stated, “I tell you all very specifically, religion is for man and not man for religion; to get human treatment, convert yourselves”

Significantly, on 1 April 2021, the Gujarat Legislative Assembly amended the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act 2003 which deals with instances of forcible religious conversions for marriage. This newly enacted amendment was challenged before the Gujarat High Court through writ petitions, on the grounds that it violated certain fundamental rights. The Gujarat High Court passed an interim order prohibiting its application to inter-faith marriages. Observations of the Court in the aforementioned order provide useful insights in the aspects of freedom of marriage, free choice, and their significance under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Right to Life). The Court also questioned the constitutional validity of such an “anti-conversion” law in light of established judicial precedents.

Addressing a public gathering on the 2003 Gujarat Law at the Nehru Centre in London on 11 June 2003, eminent Jurist and former Solicitor General of India, the late Mr. Soli Sorabjee said, “The Gujarat legislation goes one step further and provides that the person who is converted has also to seek permission from the District Magistrate about the fact of such conversion. Failure to comply with these statutory provisions invites severe punishment of imprisonment and fine. These provisions are objectionable. They intrude on a person’s right to privacy. One’s religious belief is essentially a private matter as is conversion from one’s religion to another. It is a result of deep-seated inner convictions. The State laws have the effect of deterring genuine conversions and impairing the substance of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. These laws have further shaken the confidence of the minority communities and accentuated their sense of insecurity.”

Instead of pathetically exposing his communal mindset, there is plenty, which the Allahabad High Court judge, needs to learn on Constitutional matters: justice and propriety!

• Fr. Cedric Prakash SJ
  (Fr Cedric is a human rights, reconciliation & peace activist/writer)