Recent observations by the Delhi High Court that Religion changeNot prohibited unless forced, raise a question whether conversion is also protected under the right to religious freedom in the Constitution.
A few days ago, the High Court, while hearing a plea by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay to make a law prohibiting conversion by force or fraud, observed that “First and foremost, conversion is not prohibited. Any religion, irrespective of one’s birth, It is the right of a person to follow the religion or religion which he chooses to choose. This is the freedom that our Constitution gives.”
Article 25(1) of the Constitution states that “subject to public order, morality and health … all persons have an equal right to freedom of conscience and to freely profess, practice and propagate religion”.
Although a person has the right to affirm or affirm his allegiance to a religion, does Article 25 give the right to “promote” his religion to convert to the religion of another?
Mr Upadhyay had reportedly alleged in the High Court that “mass conversions” of socially and economically disadvantaged people, especially those belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, were taking place.
In its 1977 judgment, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, in Rev. Stanislaus vs State of Madhya Pradeshhad held that the word ‘propaganda’ in Article 25 “does not confer on any other person the right to convert to his religion, but to propagate or to spread one’s religion by interpreting his principles”.
The Constitution Bench had also said that “there is no fundamental right to convert any other person to his religion”. Freedom of religion is not guaranteed with respect to only one religion, but covers all religions equally. “If any person knowingly proselytizes another person, as opposed to his attempt to propagate or spread the principles of his religion, it is an attack on the ‘freedom of conscience’ guaranteed equally to all citizens of the country.” will, the 1977 judgment had argued.
Religious freedom can be “properly enjoyed” only when people of one religion exercise their rights in accordance with the equal freedom of persons professing another religion.
“What is free to one is an equal amount of freedom to another. Hence there can be no such thing as a fundamental right of any person to convert to his religion,” the Constitution Bench had said.
But Supreme Court lawyer Kaliswaram Raj said the 1977 verdict was “incomplete”.
“Even though the right to propagate religion does not include the right to proselytize, the fundamental right to profess or practice religion freely under Article 25 shall include the right to proselytize. In Stanislaus’s judgment, the right to proselytize or proselytize shall include is concerned, and not the right to convert. The view of the Delhi High Court is more on the right to convert. This is an area in which the Constitution Bench has not delved deeply,” Mr. Raj said.