9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The controversy in the Madhya Pradesh cases relates to the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the Madhya Pradesh Act. The controversy in the Orissa cases arises out of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 hereinafter referred to as the Orissa Act. The provisions of the 'two Acts in so far as they relate to. prohibition of forcible conversion and punishment therefor, are similar and the questions which have been raised before us are common to both of them. It will, therefore, be enough, for the purpose of appreciating the controversy, to make a somewhat detailed mention of the facts of the Madhya Pradesh case. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Baloda-Bazar sanctioned the prosecution of Rev. Stainislaus for the commission of offences under sections 3, 4 and 5(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Act. When the case came up before Magistrate, First Class, Baloda-Bazar, the appellant Rev. Stainislaus raised a preliminary objection that the State Legislature did not have the necessary legislative competence and the Madhya Pradesh Act was ultra vires the Constitution as it did not fall within the purview of Entry I of List II and Entry I of Lis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ows :- What is penalised is conversion by force, fraud or by allurement. The other element is that. every person has a right to profess his own religion and to act according to it. Any interference with that right of the other person by resorting to conversion by force, fraud or allurement cannot, in our opinion, be said to contravene Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India, as the Article g uarantees religious freedom subject to public health. As such, we do not find that the provisions of sections 3, 4 and 5 of the M.P. Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 are violative of Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, it guarantees that religious freedom to one and all including those who might be amenable to conversion by force, fraud or allurement. As such, the Act, in our opinion, guarantees equality of religious freedom to all, much less can it be said to encroach upon the religious freedom of any particular individual. The High Court therefore held that there was no justification for the argument that sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Act were violative of Article 25(1) of the Constitution. The High Court in fact went on to hold that those s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I applies. The High Court has therefore declared the Orissa Act to be ultra vires the Constitution and directed the issue of mandamus to the State Government not to give effect to it. The criminal cases which were pending have been quashed. The common questions which, have been raised for our consideration are (1) whether the two Acts were violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25(1) of the Constitution, and (2) whether the State Legislatures were competent to enact them ? Article 25(1) of the Constitution reads as follows: 25(1) Subject to public order,' morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the right to 'propagate' one's religion means the right to convert a person to one's own religion. On that basis, counsel has argued further that the right to convert a person to one's own religion is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 25 (1) of the Constitution. The expression 'propagate' has a number of meanings, including to mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrect meaning of the Article, and we find no justification for the view that it grants. a fundamental right to convert persons to one's own religion. It has to be appreciated that the freedom of religion enshrined in the Article is not guaranteed in respect of one religion only, but covers all religions alike, and it can be properly enjoyed by a person if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate with the like freedom of persons following the other religions. What is freedom for one, is freedom for the other, in equal measure, and there can therefore be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one's own religion. It was next been argued by counsel that the Legislatures of Madhya Pradesh, and Orissa States did not have legislative competence to pass the Madhya Pradesh Act and the Orissa Act respectively, because their laws regulate 'religion' and fall under the Residuary Entry 97 in List 1 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. It is not in controversy that the Madhya Pradesh Act provides for the prohibition of conversion from one religion to. another by use of force or allurement, or by fraudulent means, and matters incidental th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
