[MP Freedom of Religion Act] Mandate to declare religious conversion before authority prima facie unconstitutional: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently stated that the mandatory requirement under the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act that a citizen involved in religious conversion must give a declaration about same to the District Magistrate, is prima facie unconstitutional [Rev. Suresh Carleton & Ors v State of MP & Ors]. .A bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta also directed the State government to not take any coercive action against any person who contravenes Section 10 (declaration before conversion of religion) of the Act."Section 10 makes it obligatory for a citizen desiring conversion to give a declaration in this regard to the District Magistrate which in our opinion ex facie, unconstitutional in the teeth of aforesaid judgments of this Court. Thus, till further orders, respondent shall not prosecute the adult citizens if they solemnize marriage on their own volition and shall not take coercive action for violation of Section 10 of Act of 21," the order stated..The Court issued the order while it was considering a batch of pleas challenging the constitutionality of the Act.In one of the pleas, it was specifically prayed to strike down the following provisions of the Act Prohibition of conversion from one religion to another;Complaint against the conversion of religion;Punishment for contravention of Section 3; Deeming any marriage performed in contravention of Section 3 as null and void;Mandatory declaration before conversion of religion; andPlacing burden of proof on convertee..The petitioners argued on a common ground that, by way of introducing present Act unbridled, uncanalized and arbitrary powers are given to the authorities.The fundamental right of citizen to practice a religion, marry a person of his choice irrespective of caste and religion of his spouse is sought to be interfered with and taken away by the authorities, they added.They further asserted that every citizen has a valuable right not to disclose his/her belief, and that the citizen is under no obligation either to disclose their own religion or their intention to switch over to another religion to the State.It was also contended that disclosure of religion or intention to change the religion may rather lead to communal tension and may endanger the life or limb of the convertee. Therefore, if these provisions are permitted to stand, it will have 'chilling effect' on the citizens, the petitioners submitted. As an interim relief, the petitioners prayed that during the pendency of the matters before the Court, the State be restrained from prosecuting anyone under the Act..On the contrary, the State counsel argued that the petitions are vague and and that if the interim relief is granted, it will amount to giving them final relief. The maintainability of the pleas was also attempted to be assailed so as to press the Court to dismiss them at the outset. .The Court did not concur with the State counsel.It referred to a judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which declared a provision of Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2006 as unconstitutional. As per the struck down provision, citizens were required to inform the authorities about their wish to change the religion.The Court also stated that Apex Court in catena of judgments poignantly held that if two adults decide to solemnize marriage, it is their personal choice which is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.In this regard, Court referred to judgments in Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors and Laxmibai Chandaragi B & Anr v State of Karnataka & Ors.Therefore, the Court admitted the pleas, granted the interim relief sought for and directed the State government to file its reply within three weeks..Senior Advocate Manoj Sharma along with advocates Lija Merin John, Umesh Manshori, Sandhya Rajak and Himanshu Mishra represented the petitioners.Advocate General Prashant Singh along with advocates HS Ruprah, Bharat Singh, Suyash Thakur, Ankit Agrawal, and Aakash Malpani represented the State/respondents..[Read Order]