The Uttar Pradesh government on Thursday said that there is no evidence against the accused Nadeem of having any illicit relation with a Hindu woman nor is there any proof that he tried to change her faith. The government in its affidavit to the Allahabad High Court said the provisions of the state’s anti-conversion law, UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020, need not have been invoked against him.

The court was hearing the petition filed by Nadeem for quashing the FIR registered under the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020. Akshay Kumar Tyagi, the complainant, who works in a prominent pharmaceutical company as a labour contractor lodged FIR against Nadeem and his brother Salman on November 29, 2020 in western Uttar Pradesh’s Muzaffarnagar, two days after the UP ordinance was passed.

Tyagi also claimed in the FIR that Nadeem used to visit his house in Muzaffarnagar and had trapped his wife Parul in a web of love to try and convert her. The accused were first in Uttar Pradesh to be charged under the new law against forced conversions.

Nadeem’s lawyer Syed Farman Ahmad Naqvi has said the state gave an affidavit that said naming them in the FIR under the anti-conversion law was found to be false and nothing was found in the investigation that he tried to forcibly convert the woman for marriage.

Earlier, the Court had ordered the UP Police not to take any coercive action against Nadeem and granted him protection from arrest until the next date of hearing. The High Court will next hear the case on January 15 and ordered the extension of police protection to Nadeem.

The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday directed the Haridwar District Magistrate to inquire from the authorities as to why the application of Anjali, also known as Afsana, for conversion has not been processed. She and her Hindu husband were also provided police protection by the Court.

The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ravindra Maithani passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Anjali and another. The petitioners belong to different faiths and Anjali has converted to the faith of her Hindu husband, the second petitioner. The two married on December 16, 2020. They sought police protection from the Court as they have an apprehension that the her brothers may physically harm them.

“We say nothing about the marriage or even the earlier conversion of Afsana from Muslim to Hindu, as it is prima facie in violation of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, as no such permission has been taken from the concerned District Magistrate”, the Court said.

According to the petitioners, they have already moved an application before the concerned District Magistrate but no decision has been taken on it.

The Court observed, “They seem to be articulate and they both have apprised the Court that they have a threat perception at the hands of the private respondent no.3 and 4 (her brothers).”

Meanwhile, purely in the interest of justice and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 and S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal and another reported in (2010) 5 SCC 600, as an interim measure, the Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar to coordinate with the subordinate officers of Police and give suitable directions to the concerned SHO, to provide necessary protection to the petitioners as there is a threat perception at the hands of respondent nos. 3 and 4.

The Court has also issued notice to respondents 3 and 4. Three weeks’ time has been granted to the respondents to file counter-affidavit.

Matter has been posted for further hearing on March 05, 2021.

Read Also: SEBI imposes Rs 27 crore penalty on NDTV promoters Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy for violating regulatory norms

A petition has been filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020, seeking a declaration that the ordinance is unconstitutional and void.

The petition, filed by Advocates Devesh Saxena and Shashwat Anand, has sought a stay on the effect and operation of the impugned ordinance promulgated by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh and direction to the State government to not take any coercive action in pursuance of the impugned ordinance.

The plea has stated that the impugned ordinance leads to an unreasonable intrusion into the domain of personal autonomy, and mandates an advance notice of 60 days to the District Magistrate before the intended conversion, which is to be followed by a police enquiry into the circumstances of conversion. The religious priest doing the conversion is also required to give such prior notification. After the conversion, the person has to appear before the District Magistrate for confirmation. The authority will notify the conversion and will invite public objections before confirming the conversion. 

Therefore, the obligation imposed by the Ordinance to seek permission for conversion two months in advance is fundamentally arbitrary and a violation of the right to privacy and the State has no role to play in the personal choice of individuals in consummating a union and embracing the religion of their partner. 

The plea has contended that while the State can certainly regulate acts of forced conversion but the starting point of such regulation has to be a complaint made by the individual who opts to convert. In most of these cases, it is the parents who complain that their daughter has been fraudulently enticed into a relationship and is a victim of forced conversion, which makes the Ordinance an instrument of harassment in situations where interfaith marriages are voluntary.  

According to the petitioners, the provisions in the ordinance have the potential to give State sanction and administrative support to the societal hostilities which persons intending to have interfaith marriages face. Numerous petitions filed in High Courts seeking police protection for inter-faith couples denote the level of community threat and social ostracism which they have to face. The provisions of the ordinance energize the 12 community groups and reinforce the social asymmetries to further disempower an individual.

Also Read: Delhi HC criticizes Bar Council for failure in online enrollment of law graduates

The plea has contended that the Ordinance gives a licence to the police authorities to terrorise and harass inter-faith couples who want to exercise their right to marry according to their choice, in the guise unfounded radical theories of ‘love jihad’. The ordinance, which has completely failed to strike a balance between freedoms and mala fide conversions, has been passed and is being implemented in much haste and reckless manner without ensuring that the same does not curb one’s Fundamental Rights or hamper national integration instead.

The plea filed in Supreme Court challenges love jihad law of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, Court says it violates the basic structure of the constitution.

PIL filed in Supreme Court seeking removal of protesting farmers from Delhi borders citing the risk of spread of Covid-19, the plea says the protest is blocking roads for all emergency and medical services to Delhi.

Madras High Court issues directions for the conduct of inquiry in cases of unnatural deaths in custody gives guidelines for body preservation, autopsy, and family access to body holds that custodial deaths affect the state’s legitimacy.

Karnataka High Court issues notice on a petition which challenges Government decision to drop criminal prosecution against elected representatives and ministers.

Read Also: Allahabad HC to hear DIG Arvind Sen’s anticipatory bail plea on December 8