‘Verdict against conversion for marriage not good law’
The proper to decide on a companion regardless of caste, creed or faith is intrinsic to the constitutional proper to life and private liberty, the Allahabad excessive courtroom held, including that two earlier judgments that objected to spiritual conversion for the aim of marriage didn’t lay down good legislation.
The determination by the two-judge bench, delivered on November 11 however made public on Monday, could pose a authorized drawback for the Uttar Pradesh authorities, which is planning a legislation to control interfaith relationships on the premise of the 2 earlier judgments that have been each delivered by single-judge benches.
The bench, comprising justices Pankaj Naqvi and Vivek Agarwal, was listening to a petition by a Muslim man and his spouse, who transformed from Hinduism to Islam, to quash a police grievance against them by the girl’s father. The petitioners contended they have been each majors and competent to decide on their life companions.
The courtroom agreed with the petitioners, Salamat Ansari and Priyanka Kharwar alias Alia, each residents of Kushinagar district.
“An individual on attaining majority is statutorily conferred a right to choose a partner, which if denied would not only affect his/her human right but also his/her right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” noticed the bench.
The judges held that any interference in a private relationship would represent a “serious encroachment” on the fitting to freedom of alternative. “We fail to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even state can have objection to relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together,” the decision mentioned.
The judgment additionally contradicted two earlier judgments – one delivered in 2014 and the opposite in 2020 – that mentioned that non secular conversion solely for the sake of marriage was not legitimate underneath legislation.
“We hold the judgments in the Noor Jahan and Priyanshi (cases) as not laying good law. None of these judgments dealt with the issue of life and liberty of two matured individuals in choosing a partner or their right to freedom of choice as to with whom they would like to live,” the two-judge bench held.
In the Noor Jahan case, the HC had dismissed a batch of writ petitions asking for safety of a married couple the place the girl transformed from Hinduism to Islam. In the Priyanshi case, a Muslim lady transformed to marry a Hindu man, and the couple approached the courtroom for police safety.
Shortly after the excessive courtroom handed the judgment within the second case in October, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath introduced that his authorities was planning a legislation to control “love jihad”, a time period utilized by right-wing Hindu activists to explain relationships between Hindu lady and Muslim males.
These activists allege that Muslim males “lure” gullible ladies for conversion, although specialists say grownup women and men are free to transform for relationships, and the central authorities informed Parliament in February that there was no definition of the time period and no such circumstances have been reported by companies. Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka, all dominated by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), are additionally contemplating comparable legal guidelines.
In the present case, the petitioners sought quashing of a primary data report lodged on August 25, 2019 for alleged kidnapping, assault and different sections of the Indian Penal Code and underneath the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The petitioners mentioned they have been residing collectively as a pair peacefully for one 12 months and the FIR – filed by the girl’s father – was aimed toward ending the marriage. Counsel for the girl’s father opposed the petition and cited the 2014 and 2020 judgments, arguing that conversion solely for the sake of marriage is prohibited and such marriages had no sanctity in legislation.
The judges dismissed that argument. “To disregard the choice of a person who is of the age of majority would not only be antithetic to the freedom of choice of a grown up individual but would also be a threat to the concept of unity in diversity.”
“We do not see Priyanka Kharwar and Salamat as Hindu and Muslim, rather as two grown up individuals who out of their own free will and choice are living together peacefully and happily over a year,” it held.