An ill-conceived, overbroad and vague ordinance

Context: Recently passed ‘The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance’, raises concerns about misuse of an ordinance making power of the state and violation of rights of inter-faith couples.

Issues with an ordinance making power of the Governor (The President of India (Article 123)):

• Article 213 (1) provides three pre-conditions to be satisfied before the promulgation of the ordinance:

1. 1. The State Legislature should not be in session;
   2. Circumstances should exist for promulgating an ordinance;
   3. Those circumstances must warrant immediate action.

• Associated concerns:
  • Reasons for immediate action is non-justiciable: The court can only inquire whether circumstances existed or not and will not delve into the sufficiency of circumstances.
  • E.g. The Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce Ordinance did not disclose the circumstances and urgency for immediate action.

Provisions and issues with the ordinance:

• Prohibition on conversion by marriage: under Section 3 of the Act can be misused against inter-faith couples.
• Excessive powers to police: under Section 7 of the Act provides for the arrest of a person (without magistrate’s order) on the information (can be fake) that he/she is designing a religious conversion.
  • The nature of information includes an allegation of allurement, which includes an offer of any temptation in the form of a gift or gratification.
  • Recent example of misuse: Arrest of a boy offering pizza to a girl of a different religion.
• Arbitrary State interference:
  • Under Section 8 of the Act: The person getting converted has to inform two months prior to the District Magistrate (DM) through a declaration. (Thus, DM determines the fate of conversion)
  • Even thereafter, DM must be informed by the converted through a declaration under Section 9.
• Under Section 12: lies with the person who has caused the conversion, to prove that conversion was not on account of coercion, fraud, etc. or by marriage.

Conclusion: The ordinance vil­ifies all inter­faith marriages and places unreasonable obstacles on consenting adults in exercising their personal choice, mocks the right to privacy and violates the right to life, liberty and dignity.