What Did the Supreme Court Ask from States Regarding Anti-Conversion Laws?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Supreme Court's recent request for state responses regarding anti-conversion laws raises critical questions about legal frameworks and personal freedoms. As multiple states amend their laws, the implications for interfaith relationships and personal liberties come into sharp focus.
Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court demands responses from states on anti-conversion laws.
- Uttar Pradesh's law amendments increase penalties and complicate bail.
- Third-party complaints may lead to harassment of couples.
- Legal implications for interfaith relationships are significant.
- Next hearing scheduled in six weeks for further examination.
New Delhi, Sep 16 (NationPress) The Supreme Court on Tuesday requested responses from multiple state governments concerning petitions that seek a suspension of their anti-conversion laws.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran mandated that the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, and others respond within four weeks.
During the proceedings, senior advocate Chander Uday Singh, representing the petitioners, urged the court to address the matter with urgency, citing that several state administrations are intensifying their anti-conversion laws.
Singh highlighted that Uttar Pradesh has revised its legislation to impose harsher penalties for unlawful religious conversions and introduced “twin conditions” akin to those found in the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) to make bail more challenging. He noted that this revised law allows third parties to lodge complaints, potentially leading to the harassment of interfaith couples by vigilante groups.
Following the arguments, the CJI Gavai-led bench instructed Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj to submit the state governments' responses regarding the requests for a stay on the amendments to these laws. The court appointed advocates Srishti Agnihotri and Ruchira Goel as nodal counsel for the petitioners and respondents, respectively, to compile the necessary pleadings.
The apex court also separated a plea submitted by advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya that calls for a nationwide law to combat conversion through coercive means and deceit. This issue will be revisited in six weeks.
Previously, the Supreme Court had instructed parties disputing the anti-conversion laws enacted by various states to file a consolidated petition for transferring their cases from the High Courts to the Supreme Court. The governments of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh have lodged individual petitions challenging the interim orders of their respective High Courts that have stayed specific sections of their conversion laws.
Point of View
I view the Supreme Court's intervention as a crucial step towards maintaining the balance between state legislation and individual rights. The ongoing debate around anti-conversion laws highlights the need for a thorough examination of legal frameworks that impact personal freedoms across the nation. Upholding justice and ensuring individual liberties must remain paramount.
NationPress
21/09/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What are anti-conversion laws?
Anti-conversion laws are regulations enacted by certain states in India to prevent religious conversions, often citing concerns over coercion and deceit.
What is the Supreme Court's role in this matter?
The Supreme Court is reviewing petitions challenging these laws and has asked state governments to provide their responses regarding amendments and their implications.
How do these laws affect interfaith couples?
These laws can lead to harassment and legal challenges for interfaith couples, particularly with provisions allowing third-party complaints.
What prompted the Supreme Court's request for responses?
The court's request was prompted by concerns over the amendments made by various states to make the anti-conversion laws more stringent.
What is the significance of this legal battle?
This legal battle highlights the tension between state laws and individual freedoms, raising questions about religious rights and personal choices.
