Gujrat High Court, Rescuer of interfaith marriages:

2 years ago Trivandrum Janine John

The Gujarat High Court division bench comprising Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Biren Vaishnav on 19.08.2021, passed an interim order directing that the provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021, which penalises forcible or fraudulent religious conversion through marriage will not operate merely because a marriage is inter-faith, unless there is something to show there is force, allurement or fraud involved. This temporary restraining order is intended to safeguard parties who have solemnised interfaith marriages from undue harassment.

After a marathon debate, the strict legislation was enacted by the Gujarat Assembly on April 1 with a majority vote, despite objections from members of the Congress, who labelled the bill as having a "political motive." Following Governor Acharya Devavrata's recent approval of the Bill, the CM has declared that the modified Act would take effect on June 15. The Act aimed to deal with religious conversion through “allurement, force or by misrepresentation or by any other fraudulent means”. The new law adds to the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act of 2003 by imposing strict penalties on anyone who engages in forceful religious conversion through marriage. It has provisions such as a possible penalty of up to ten years in prison and a fine of up to Rs 5 lakh, the burden of proof being on the accused, and an investigation being conducted by an officer not lower than the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 

The writ petition filed by Mr.Muhammed Isa.M.Hakim challenging the provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021. It was argued that the Act's provisions infringe on a citizen's basic right to profess and promote their religion as guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution. It was further contended that the Act's language is ambiguous, and that it infringes on the vital right to privacy guaranteed by Article 21 to a married couple.

Chief Justice Nath said, “We are of the opinion that pending further hearing, rigors of section 3,4, 4a to 4c, 5, 6, and 6a shall not operate merely because the marriage is solemnised by a person of one religion with another religion without force, allurement or fraudulent means and such marriages cannot be termed as marriage for the purpose of unlawful conversion.”








Recent News