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 consti