The Wire Staff 
New Delhi: Uttar Pradesh’s Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Act was meant to “guarantee religious freedom to all persons”, the Allahabad high court has said, adding that this “reflects the social harmony and spirit of India”.
“The objective of this Act was to sustain the spirit of secularism in India,” Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal of the high court continued to say while hearing the bail application of a man accused under the Act.
Under the Act, it is illegal to convert someone by way of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or “any other fraudulent means”.
The complainant in the case accused one Ajeem and his family of coercing her to accept Islam and perform Islamic rituals against her will, as well as of keeping her in captivity, Justice Agarwal said.
Ajeem also pressured the complainant to marry him, the prosecution was cited as saying.
His counsel said he had been falsely implicated in the case and that the complainant “was in love with the applicant and … had left on her own”. They also noted that the complainant had “solemnised marriage with the applicant [Ajeem]”.
But Justice Agarwal said that the complainant’s account as given in the FIR matched her statements made to the police.
Moreover, Ajeem “could not bring on record any material to demonstrate that any application was moved under Section 8 of the Act … for getting the informant converted into Islam before the marriage/Nikah took place, as alleged between him and the informant,” the judge said.
Section 8 of the Act requires that a person who wishes to convert their religion submit a declaration to the authorities at least two months before the conversion is to take place, assuring them that their intent to convert is free of force, coercion, undue influence or allurement.
It also requires that the “convertor”, or the person performing the religious conversion, give advance notice of a month to the authorities, following which the police must conduct an inquiry into the “real intention, purpose and cause” of the proposed conversion.
Justice Agarwal denied Ajeem’s bail application, saying he violated provisions of the Act.
While the constitution grants the right to preach, practice and propagate one’s religion, Justice Agarwal said in reference to Article 25, this right “cannot be extended to construe a collective right to proselytise”.
“The right to religious freedom belongs equally to the person converting and the individual sought to be converted,” he added.
In a previous judgement, the judge said that Article 25 “does not provide for religious conversion”.
UP’s anti-unlawful conversion law, which was enacted in 2021, is controversial and has served as a source of harassment for several sections of the state’s population.
Last month, the state assembly passed a Bill amending the law to make it more stringent.
If it comes into force, the amended Act will allow anyone to file complaints – not just the aggrieved or their family – in alleged cases of unlawful conversion, make securing bail more complicated and make way for punishment up to life in prison, as The Wire has reported.