Love Jihad Ordinance criminalises interfaith unions, assault on Article 2: Petitioner to Allahabad HC

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Opposing the representations rendered by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, the plaintiff claimed that union amongst adults should not be a matter for state or social regulators.
• The purpose of the declaration is to prohibit any sort of illegitimate conversion by deformity, intimidation, coercive control, persuasion, desire, marriage, etc.
• The UP Government believed that the increase in instances of 'heart jihad' or coercive marriage conversion was a valid cause to employ the authority of the Order under Article 213 of the Constitution.

FURTHER DETAILS

• The claimant observed, however, that the UP Government had not provided any estimates, proof or indicators as evidence of a persuasive situation.
• The Kanpur Police Special Investigation Team submitted an investigation detailing the orchestrated plot underlying interreligious union situations that had been scanned when several cases of Hindu-Muslim marriages worked out to be voluntary.
• In its indictment, the UP Government argued that it was incorrect to mark the challenged legislation as 'Love-Jihad ordinance.' It also argued that the decree did not target any single religion and was similarly valid to all kinds of coercive conversion not only interfaith marriages.

THE REALITY

• After the UP Prohibition of the Illegal Change of Faith Ordinance, 2020, which came into force on November 28, 86 people were enrolled and 79 of them were Muslims.
• Records indicate that the UP Police has reported 14 incidents and rendered 51 arrests, of which 49 are in custody. Out of these 14 incidents, 13 include Hindu women reportedly under coercion to convert to Islam. In 12 of these cases, the woman's relatives have lodged a complaint.
• The UP Government contested the sustainability of the written complaints, arguing that the High Courts could not test the vires of the law in the public interest. Reliance was put on the decision of the Supreme Court in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK Rejan, 2003 (7) SCC.
• The appellant argued that the judgment does not impose any bar or bar on the plenary powers of the High Courts under Article 226, which are much narrower and more comprehensive than the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 32, to rule on the constitutionality of any law in the PIL under Article 226.
• Dependence is put on Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979 AIR SC 1369, where, on the grounds of the news story, a PIL was lodged by a lawyer to illustrate the misery of thousands of under-incarcerated prisoners languishing in different jails in Bihar. 

DO YOU AGREE WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION THIS ORDINANCE?

LET US KNOW YOUR VIEWS IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!