Legal Matters | A law to set communities against one another

Rank 10 | State/Union Territory: Uttar Pradesh | Happiness score: 3.41 (Image: Reuters)

On the face of it, the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020 is as innocuous as it comes. After all, religious conversion as a result of coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation cannot be justified. But like much of recent legislation, what you see is merely the façade — the devil is in the details.

One way to examine the ordinance is to look at its immediate use. In just the first week since its promulgation, scores of examples have emerged where the UP Police disrupt inter-faith couples about to be married, consensually — even with both sets of parents’ present, and arresting Muslim men. Previously settled disputes between inter-faith couples, since separated, have been resurrected to file fresh cases.

A scrutiny of the provisions of the ordinance — just 14 sections in all — would show the law up for what it is — a tool to snuff out not just religious conversion, but even the thought of it. In fact, some of the provisions are so draconian that people of different religions might even become wary of mixing.

For instance, allurement (which is sufficient to attract punishment) is defined to include any offer of any ‘temptation’ in the form of, among other things, employment, ‘free education in a religious school run by a reputed organisation’, better lifestyle, and so on. Section 3 says that no person shall convert, or attempt to convert, directly or otherwise through, among other means such as fraud or coercion, allurement or marriage.

So a family whose child, let’s say, avails of free education at a minority-run school, or a person who accepts employment under a devout person, and is subsequently inspired to embrace the latter’s religion (even the sowing of temptation is criminalised), can inadvertently trigger the criminal consequences of the law.

Section 12 of the ordinance then reverses criminal law on its head by putting the burden of proof on the person alleged to have caused conversion (in this example, the person who allegedly caused temptation to convert through allurement). Incidentally, whether the conversion was forced has become irrelevant — the use of terminology such as ‘allurement’ and ‘temptation’ means that voluntary conversion is also covered by the ambit of law.

Section 4 permits any person related to the person converted, by blood, marriage or adoption, to file a complaint under the law. So now what should really be a personal choice (constitutionally protected under Article 25 — freedom of conscience, and to practice any religion) can be criminalised by a disgruntled relative. (One could argue that since the law states that the aggrieved person, or his/her parents, etc. can complain, the person converted must be ‘aggrieved’ in the first place, but that distinction is likely to be missed by the police officer registering the complaint).

Section 5 deals with punishments. Any person causing conversion faces a minimum sentence of one year in prison, and Rs 15,000 in fine. If the person converted is a minor or of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, the minimum sentence is of two years. For mass conversions, the minimum sentence is three years. Mass conversion is defined as conversion where two or more persons are converted. So even if a couple embrace a different religion, they are essentially converting in mass under the ordinance.

Then comes the cherry on top.

Section 11 of the ordinance says that not only is the person committing the offence, or even any person who aids and abets the offence, guilty; but also, any person who counsels, convinces or procures any person to commit the offence can be prosecuted as if they had actually committed the offence, and punished accordingly (that is, now association with the alleged converter can become potentially criminal). Under section 7, all offences are non-bailable. This level of insidiousness in legislation is simply unprecedented, outside of perhaps anti-terror laws.

We haven’t even gotten to the issue of conversion for marriage. Marriage is one of the several reasons for conversion that is prohibited under Section 3, alongside fraud, coercion, allurement, etc. Section 6 says that any marriage which was done solely for the purpose of ‘unlawful conversion’ or vice versa (presumably, unlawful conversion done solely for the purpose of marriage?) shall be declared void. Remember, marriage based on fraud is already voidable (not void — that is if the defrauded party wishes to, he/she can continue in the marriage) under extant marriage laws.

Section 4 (supra) allows family members of the person marrying to complain, which means parents can effectively veto their child’s choice of marriage partner from a different community.

It is highly unlikely that any of these provisions will stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Nevertheless, the damage it can do till it is overturned, by criminalising perfectly legal acts, and denying constitutionally guaranteed rights, could leave far more lasting cleavages in society.

Abraham C Mathews is an advocate based in Delhi. Twitter: @ebbruz. Views are personal.