Prima Facie Sections 3 & 5 Of UP Prohibition Of Unlawful Conversion Of Religion Act Glaringly Not Unconstitutional- Allahabad HC
|The Allahabad High Court recently in an order observed that provisions of Sections 3 & 5 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 prima facie do not appear to be glaringly unconstitutional or ex facie unconstitutional and refused to grant any stay on the provisions of this Law whose vires were impugned.
The Division Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Gajendra Kumar were dealing with a Criminal Writ Petition seeking a declaration of Sections 3, 5 & 12 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 as ultra vires to the Constitution of India and quashing of the impugned First Information Report lodged at Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur under Sections 120B of I.P.C. and Section 3/5(1) of U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
Senior Advocate Gopal Chaturvedi along with Advocate Anuj Srivastava appeared for the Petitioners and the Additional Advocate General Manish Goel appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Petitioners argued that the main offence against them, which is a violation of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, does not disclose any offence because the mandatory provisions in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act have not been followed. They contended that Section 8(7) states that any conversion without compliance with the mandatory provisions in sub-sections 1 to 4 of Section 9 renders the conversion void. Hence, they claimed that no actual religious conversion occurred.
The High Court noted that since the vires of some sections of the Act are under challenge, the State of Uttar Pradesh may file counter affidavits within two weeks. On the question of a grant of stay, the High Court referred to judgments of the Supreme Court stating that "Unless a provision of law whose vires is impugned, is ex facie unconstitutional or manifestly unjust or glaringly unconstitutional, no interim order should be granted during the pendency of the petition."
Accordingly, the Bench observed that "Upon a perusal of the FIR, we find therein, direct allegations of allurement having been offered by the petitioners to the first informant and, therefore, in our considered opinion, the allegation, prima facie, constitute an offence under Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned first information report cannot be quashed, till such time, the primary relief prayed for in the writ petition, namely striking down of Section 3 as unconstitutional, is granted."
The Court further held that "We see no justification for granting any interim order to the petitioners as the provisions of Section 3 & 5 prima facie do not appear to be glaringly unconstitutional or ex facie unconstitutional," and rejected the stay application.
Cause Title: Dr. R.B. Lal and 7 Others v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others