A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Delhi High Court, seeking appropriate direction to the Centre and the Delhi Government to prohibit forcible religious conversion by intimidating, threatening, and deceivingly luring through gifts and monetary benefits, as well as through the use of black magic and superstition.
The Petition contends that religious conversion by “carrot and stick” and “hook or crook” violates not just Articles 14, 15, 21, 25, but also the principles of secularism, which is an inherent part of the Constitution’s basic framework.
A division bench of Justices Sanjeev Sachdeva and Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a PIL filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who requested that the Centre and the Delhi government frame laws prohibiting forced religious conversions, which he claimed had become a severe problem in Delhi.
The petitioner, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, a practising lawyer and BJP leader, claims that the Centre and Delhi Government have failed to control the menace of black magic superstition and deceitful religious conversion, despite their duty under Article 51A, and requests that the Centre establish the feasibility of appointing a committee to suggest changes to Chapter-XV of the Indian Penal Code or draw up a Conversion of Religion Act.
Advocate Upadhyay contended that organisations, typically supported by international bodies, lure people to convert to Christianity by offering them treatments for various ailments such as cancer or knee pain under certain circumstances.
The petitioner claimed that he could provide the bench with various videos proving his point. The petitioner said that because there are no laws or guidelines governing forced religious conversion, Delhi has become a “safe haven for conversion mafia.”
“The injury caused to the public is extremely large because there is not even one district which is free of black magic, superstition and religious conversion. Incidents of massive religious conversion are being reported every day as the religious conversion is continued by intimidating, threatening, deceivingly luring through gifts and monetary benefits and by using the black magic, superstition, miracles.”
According to the petition, the Centre and State have the authority to establish special provisions for the benefit of women and children (Article 15). Also subject to public order, morality, health, and other Part-III regulations is freedom of conscience, free profession, practise, and propagation of religion (Article 25).
Furthermore, the directing principles are affirmative instructions to provide socioeconomic political justice; liberty of thought, speech, belief, faith, and worship; equality of status and opportunity; and to encourage among them fraternity, assuring individuals’ dignity, unity, and integrity.
However, the Centre and State have not taken the necessary efforts to ensure the high ideals indicated in the Preamble and Part-III, according to the appeal.
The bench, however, interrupted, adding that in order to establish the averments made, the petitioner must place statistics and other such data on record. The judge noticed that the petitioner’s documents only included newspaper reports and proceedings pending before several courts.
The bench ruled that newspaper articles could not be considered since they did not represent facts and were unsupported. The court also stated that it was not necessary to enact legislation on every subject. It claimed that in order to frame laws on a subject, there must be a problem that necessitates the creation of a law in that field.
The court also observed that there was no disagreement regarding the idea that the court might advise the legislature to establish laws when required; nevertheless, the petitioner was asking the court to declare all forced conversions null and void without informing the court of any instances where forced conversion had occurred.
In response, the petitioner argued that even the Chief Minister of Delhi agreed that a legislation prohibiting forced religious conversions should be enacted.
The bench then stated that if the legislature recognises the problem, it should enact legislation to address it without requiring a mandate from the Court.
“If the government is conscious about the issue, it can frame a law. It is in the domain of legislature, coury cannot direct the government to make law, it can only recommend. If you want the court to recommend, you have to make a case for the same. Something more than just your apprehension. Are you in a position of filing an affidavit that you witnessed something like this happening.”
The court directed the petitioner to provide relevant evidence to support his claims by filing an additional affidavit. The matter has been scheduled for August 31, 2022.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Others.