Supreme Court Seeks State Replies On Anti-Conversion Laws

The Supreme Court issued notices to several states, seeking responses within four weeks regarding petitions challenging controversial anti-conversion laws.

A bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai refused to impose an interim stay, instead emphasising fairness by hearing comprehensive arguments later.

Consequently, the court directed petitioners to file counter-affidavits within two weeks after receiving detailed responses from concerned states.

Furthermore, the court scheduled the matter for further hearing after six weeks, underscoring its commitment to balanced judicial examination.

Petitioners, including Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and Citizens for Justice and Peace, argued that interfaith couples suffer under these restrictive legislations.

Additionally, petitioners claimed these laws compel individuals to reveal their religious identity, thereby intruding upon fundamental rights, including personal privacy.

Importantly, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Gujarat enacted legislations regulating interfaith marriages and conversions during recent years.

Previously, the Supreme Court acknowledged religious conversion as a serious issue, cautioning against politicisation or sensationalism distorting sensitive constitutional debates.

During earlier hearings, the court also sought assistance from the Attorney General, requesting impartial guidance regarding the constitutionality of these contested laws.

The petitions demanded directions compelling both the Centre and states to adopt strict measures preventing alleged fraudulent religious conversions nationwide.

Originally, five petitions were filed in the Allahabad High Court, seven in Madhya Pradesh, and two each in Gujarat.

However, recognising overlapping concerns, the Supreme Court transferred all matters to itself, ensuring uniform judicial scrutiny across concerned states.

Petitioners maintained these laws exist primarily to harass interfaith couples, trapping them within unnecessary criminal cases under questionable pretexts.

They reiterated that such legislation fundamentally undermines individual freedoms, restricts personal choices, and erodes privacy rights guaranteed under India’s constitutional framework.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s upcoming judgment will decide whether these contested state laws uphold justice or perpetuate unnecessary discrimination.

Also Read: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends New Judges For Karnataka & Himachal Pradesh High Courts