Back
Divya Priyadarshini Singh vs : Dismisses Plea on Compliance
The , presided over by a division bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad, has clarified the mandatory nature of procedure under the . In the case of , the Court emphasized that informal representations to administrative authorities cannot circumvent the of filing a in the prescribed format.
Procedural Hurdles in Religious Conversion
The petitioner, Divya Priyadarshini Singh, had moved a before the High Court seeking a direction to the District Magistrate to consider a representation she had submitted regarding her intention to convert her religion. The underlying dispute centered on whether this "representation" satisfied the legal standards mandated by the 2021 legislation.
Upon examining the documents presented, the High Court observed that the petitioner had failed to adhere to the rigid framework established by the state legislature. The law is explicit: any individual seeking to change their religion must formally submit a via the format set out in Schedule-I of the 2021 Act at least 60 days in advance.
Balancing Statutory Mandates and Intent
The Court's legal analysis focused on the distinction between a general request and the specific statutory "" required by the Act. The bench clarified that the legislature specifically utilized the term "" in Section 8 to distinguish it from a vague representation, ensuring that the state has an objective basis to verify the voluntary nature of the conversion.
The Court noted:
"
does not refer to the word representation rather it refers to an
for a party to show its intention to embrace a different religion and, therefore, the
is mandatorily required to be moved on a prescribed format under Schedule-I of the said Act."
Furthermore, the judiciary highlighted the administrative necessity of this document:
"Upon receiving the
,
requires the District Magistrate to get an enquiry conducted through the police regarding the real intention, purpose and cause of the proposed religious conversion."
Judgement and Future Implications
Finding that the petitioner had provided a representation rather than the legally mandated form, the bench deemed the petition devoid of merit. However, the Court granted the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh , provided it strictly conforms to the procedures outlined in the legislation.
This ruling underscores the ’s position that in cases involving sensitive regulatory frameworks like the 2021 Anti-Conversion Act, is not merely formalistic—it is a for the machinery of law to function. Future petitioners are now clearly cautioned that bypassing prescribed administrative formats will result in immediate judicial dismissal.
