Conversion For Marriage Must Be Curbed: Uttarakhand HC

Coming straight to the crux of the matter, let me begin by first and foremost pointing out that the Uttarakhand High Court while hearing a case of inter-religion marriage in which a Muslim boy and a Hindu girl eloped to get married and the groom claimed to have changed his religion in order to marry – had a spot of advice for the State Government. Conversion for marriage is a very dangerous trend and cannot be justified under any circumstances. Why can’t a woman even after marriage continue to follow her own religion just like her husband follows his own religion?

While disposing of the petition, Justice Rajiv Sharma who heard the case said very explicitly that, “It needs to be mentioned that the court has come across a number of cases where inter-religion marriages are being organised. However, in few instances, the conversion from one religion to another religion is a sham conversion only to facilitate the process of marriage. In order to curb this tendency, the state government is expected to legislate the Freedom of Religion Act on the analogy of Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968 as well as Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2006, without hurting the religious sentiments of citizens.”

While craving for the exclusive indulgence of my esteemed readers, let me inform them that the Uttarakhand High Court specified that it was making a suggestion and not giving an order. Justice Rajiv Sharma stated quite explicitly that, “We are well aware that it is not the role of the court to give suggestions to the state government to legislate but due to fast changing social milieu, this suggestion is being made.” What wrong has Uttarakhand High Court said?

It must be clarified here that the two legislations that the Uttarakhand High Court referred to pertain to religious conversions. As per the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act 2006 passed by the State Assembly on December 19, 2006, the State can “prevent forcible conversions which create resentment among several sections of the society and also inflame religious passions leading to communal clashes.” Similar provisions are there in the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968 which “prohibits religious conversion by the use of force, allurement or fraudulent means.”

The moot question that I would like to ask here is: When Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh can pass laws to check forced religious coercions then why can’t other States like Uttarakhand follow suit? In fact, I would go one step further and say that Centre itself must step forward and rise to the occasion by stepping on the gas and take a courageous decision in this regard. Conversions for the purpose of marriage must be completely banned and outlawed just like Centre banned and made instant triple talaq a punishable offence with punishment of up to 3 years in jail and fine.

Not just this Centre must also not shy away from banning polygamy among people of all religions just like Jawaharlal Nehru banned it among Hindus even though prior to 1955 Hindus could marry as many woman as he liked as this only serves to increase population further and subject women to greater exploitation by women. This will without a doubt go a long way in checking conversions solely for the purpose of marriage. There can be no denying or disputing it!

It must also be brought out here that former Union Minister Arif Mohammad Khan in late Rajiv Gandhi’s Cabinet while he was PM resigned after he saw that Centre was in no mood to ban the evil practices in Muslim law like instant triple talaq, nikah halala and polygamy and had completely succumbed to the pressure tactics of Muslim fundamentalists thus denying what was the legal right of Shah Bano to get proper maintenance allowance from her husband ! Even Shayara Bano whose relentless efforts saw instant triple talaq being abolished too feels that these two evil practices of nikah halala and polygamy must also be abolished and made a punishable offence just like instant triple talaq.             

Coming back the main topic, the case which prompted the court to offer the suggestion dates to November 2 when father of the girl filed a petition in the Uttarakhand High Court claiming that his daughter – who had turned 18 recently – had been missing since September 18 and the police had been unable to find her. The court thereafter ordered the senior superintendent of police of Uddham Singh Nagar district (from where the family hailed) to locate the girl. On November 14, the girl was brought to the court by the police along with a 22 year old man who claimed that he had converted himself to Hindu religion in order to marry her. However, the girl’s family rejected the man’s claims.

As it turned out, the Uttarakhand High Court then ordered the girl to be kept for a few days in a secluded location where no one was allowed to meet her including her family. This was done so that being a major, she can decide on her own in the matter without being moulded by any external influence. Later, the girl told the court that she intends to go with her parents and was accordingly escorted. This girl was Ms Urja Sharma who had allegedly married Adil Hussain Ansari alias Atul Sharma the name which he acquired after conversion.  

All said and done, the Uttarakhand High Court is absolutely right that conversion for marriage must be curbed and discouraged. Strict rules must be made to ensure that conversion for marriage does not keep going unchecked and unpunished like before! There can be no compromise on this whatsoever!

Dare I ask: Why convert just because of marriage? Why can’t both husband and wife follow their own respective religions? What is the problem in doing so?

Dare I also ask: Why is it that only woman is always compelled to change her religion and follow that of her husband? Why should this malpractice of converting religion for marriage not just be curbed but also abolished by banning it altogether? Why can’t a law be made in this regard?

On a concluding note,  Centre must immediately enact a very strict law on this so that hapless woman are not compelled to change their religion just because the person with whom she is married wants her to do so and follow her own religion of birth and also so that it is not used as a defence to marry a woman of another religion!