Point of Law : Any person of any religion who performs any act of conversion to another religion would fall within the ambit of ‘religion convertor’, and such conversion not performed in accordance with law would be ‘unlawful conversion’. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 mandates that no person shall convert or attempt to convert.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 21, (25), 25(1), 44, 35, 25(2) (a) and 19 - Special Marriage Act - Section 4 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 8 - Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 - Christian Marriage Act, 1872 - Unlawful Conversion Act, 2021 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 2(f) - Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 56/57 – U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 - Anti Conversion Laws/Freedom of Religion Act - Interfaith Marriage - Human right - Seeking protection - Petitioners claim to be major and one of party to marriage has converted to religion/faith of his/her partner - First petitioner (Vaishnavi), a Hindu, after conversion accepted Islam, thereafter, she married second petitioner according to Muslim customs - Petitioners have applied for registration of their marriage first petitioner (Vaishnavi), a Hindu, after conversion accepted Islam, thereafter, she married second petitioner according to Muslim customs - Petitioners have applied for registration of their marriage they eloped and got married on their free will. They apprehend threat to their life and liberty as contesting private respondent, father of first petitioner, is opposing interfaith marriage - Conversion and marriage had taken place in State of Maharashtra - first petitioner converted to Islam marriage under Hindu rites and customs was solemnized - Marriage contracted by petitioners. Petitioners, herein, claim to be major and one of party to the marriage has converted to religion/faith of his/her partner. Petitioners apprehend threat to their life, liberty and well- being.
Finding of the court : The right to privacy is implicit in right to life and liberty guaranteed to citizens of this country by Article 21. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters - Every Indian is a citizen but it does not imply that the citizens together foster unity to be classified as citizenry. The citizenry does not come about naturally. It has to be fostered by legislature and executive consciously by creating the necessary legal ecosystem by enacting the requisite law, as has been in case of HFC - The legal system, particularly secular laws, governing marriage and registration, as it exists on date, compels and coerces a party to interfaith marriage to compulsorily convert. The conversion of faith may appear voluntary, but, at same time it could in all probability be a case of going against one’s conscience, thus, unwillingly violating freedom of conscience guaranteed to individual under Article 25 of Constitution. The stage has reached that Parliament should intervene and examine, as to whether, country requires multiplicity of marriage and registration laws or parties to a marriage should be brought under umbrella of single Family Code. Marriage is just an association of two persons, recognized by law. There is nothing ‘special’ about marriage to subject it under different laws for various communities, thus, erecting barriers in the free intermingling of citizens. Petitioners, cannot be hounded as criminals - Special Marriage Act miserably falls short of its objective and is surely not responsive to changed circumstances with massive rise in interfaith marriage.
Result : Writ petitions allowed

JUDGMENT :

1. The judgment is being structured in the following framework to facilitate the discussion:

A. Facts

B. Rival Submissions

C. Anti Conversion Laws/Freedom of Religion Act

D. Law Governing Interfaith Marriage

E. Development of Law

F. Multiplicity of Marriage Law

G. Uniform Civil Code (UCC)

(i) Historical Perspective

(ii) Constituent Assembly Debate

(a) Objection to UCC

(b) Response to UCC

H. Hindu Family Code – Its impact

I. Personal liberty and Privacy

J. Analysis and Conclusions

K. Relief

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

3. Notice is not being issued to the contesting private respondents in view of the order proposed to be passed.

4. Petitions are being decided finally at the admission stage, as per Rules, on the consent of the parties.

A. Facts

5. The batch of petitions (17 in number), pertain to interfaith marriage contracted by the petitioners. Petitioners, herein, claim to be major and one of the party to the marriage has converted to the religion/faith of his/her partner. The petitioners apprehend threat to their life, liberty and wellbeing. Hence the instant writ petitions seeking protection.

6. In the leading writ petition (14896 of 2021) Marya @ Vaishnvi Vilas Shirshikar and another vs. State of U.P. and others, it is pleaded that both the petitioners are medical professionals. The first petitioner (Vaishnavi), a Hindu, after conversion accepted Islam, thereafter, she married the second petitioner according to Muslim customs. The petitioners have applied for registration of their marriage. It is specifically pleaded that since they belong to different faiths, they eloped and got married on their free will. They apprehend threat to their life and liberty as the contesting private respondent, father of the first petitioner, is opposing the interfaith marriage. The first petitioner converted to Islam on 5 January 2021 and the Nikahnama is dated 23 January 2021. It is also pleaded that the first petitioner belongs to Maharashtra and the second petitioner is from Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh. The conversion and marriage had taken place in the State of Maharashtra. The registration of the marriage has been applied before the Marriage Registrar/Officer at Bijnore.

7. In Writ Petition No. 16411 of 2021, Smt. Zeent Aman @ Neha Soti and another vs. State of U.P. and others, the first petitioner Zeent Aman @ Neha Soti, aged about 27 years, a muslim, converted and accepted the Hindu faith. It appears that the conversion and the marriage under Hindu rites and customs was solemnized on 22 April 2021 at Arya Samaj Mandir in Bijnore. It is specifically pleaded that the registration of marriage is not possible without prior permission of the District Magistrate. The couple apprehends honour killing.

8. In Writ Petition No. 16796 of 2021, Smt. Maahi @ Manaal Khan and another vs. State of U.P. and others, the first petitioner Maahi @ Manaal Khan, a Muslim, converted and accepted Hindu faith on 29 August 2020, thereafter, the petitioners solemnized marriage under the Hindu rites and customs at Arya Samaj Mandir, District Kanpur, on the same date.

9. In Writ Petition No. 16848 of 2021, Smt. Shama Paravin and another vs. State of U.P. and others, the first petitioner Shama Paravin, a Muslim, converted and accepted Hindu religion. Petitioners have applied for registration of their marriage at Ghazipur.

10. In Writ Petition No. 15464 of 2021, Smt. Gulafasa @ Gauravi and another vs. State of U.P. and others, the first petitioner Gulafasa @ Gauravi, a Muslim, married the second petitioner a Hindu at a Radha Krishna Temple, Amroha on 14 June 2021, after leaving her parents home. It is pleaded that the first petitioner accepted Hindu faith, but there is no document evidencing her conversion, nor have the petitioners applied for registration of their marriage.

11. In Writ Petition No. 15675 of 2021, Ekta Madhwani @ Mehar Khan and another vs. State of U.P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2021 Supreme(All) 889

Cases Referred (15)

Judicial Analysis