ORDER

1. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

2. Learned Advocate General raised objection regarding maintainability of the petitions on twin grounds. Firstly, the relief claimed in the petitions is vague and Clause 7(2) of prayer clause does not specify as to which provisions of Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 2021’) are unconstitutional. In absence of any specific relief being prayed for, the whole Act cannot be declared as ultra vires. Moreso, when petitioners are unable to show that whole Act is brought into force by the State without their being any legislative competence for the same. Secondly, the impugned Act of 2021 is almost similar to Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 (hereinafter referred as “1968 Adhiniyam”). The constitutionality of 1968 Adhiniyam was called in question before this Court and ultimately matter travelled to apex Court. The said case was decided by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in REV – Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 1977 (1) SCC 677. The constitutionality of the 1968 Adhiniyam was upheld by the Supreme Court. The impugned Act of 2021 is almost similar and enacted by changing the ‘flavour’ (?????) of 1968 Adhiniyam and hence petition is not maintainable.

3. Faced with this, Mr. Manoj Sharma, learned Senior Advocate submits that relief claims in W.P.No.6263/2021 is very specific which reads as under :--

“7.1 Strike down sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(i), 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021.

7.2. Stay the operation of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 as in direct contrast and opposition to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.

7.3. Pass any other or further order(s) as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. So far rest of the petitions are concerned, he prays for and is granted permission to file appropriate applications to amend the petition/relief clause. Since one petition is clearly pregnant with specific relief clause, the respondents are not taken by surprise and were made aware about offending sections and grounds as taken by the petitioners. Thus, we are not inclined to dismiss these petitions based on the first objection raised by learned Advocate General.

5. So far second objection of State is concerned, Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Senior Advocate submits that in the case of REV – Stainislaus (supra), the constitutionality of 1968 Adhiniyam was called in question only on the ground of alleged violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of India. If the provisions of impugned Act are examined in juxtaposition to the 1968 Adhiniyam, it will be clear that various provisions are differently worded.

6. Thus, Act of 2021 is not verbatim same if compared with the 1968 Adhiniyam. Apart from this, as per the legal journey, the constitutionality of provisions can now be tested on the anvil of legislative competence, breach of fundamental rights and right to privacy and other new grounds which are available to the petitioners. It is argued that in AIR 1951 SC 318 (State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara), the constitutionality of a statutory provisions was called in question. The Apex Court declared the law within the ambit of Article 141 of the Constitution. The similar question cropped up before Gujarat High Court in W.P. (PIL No.12/2019) Peter Jagdish Nazarath vs. State of Gujarat. Learned Advocate General raised similar objection that since validity of Act in question has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in F. N. Balsara (supra), the constitutionality of the same again cannot be tested. The Gujarat High Court in its detailed order dated 23.8.2021 opined that there are new grounds available now on the anvil of whi