Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, which claims to represent 127 sects of Sanathan Dharma, moved Supreme Court on Thursday in support of anti-conversion laws framed by different states and whose validity has come under court’s scanner.Seeking intervention in the ongoing litigation on a batch of petitions challenging the laws passed by Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, the body filed its application through advocate Atulesh Kumar and supported the laws. It contended that the freedom to propagate religion does not confer a right to convert another person and the freedom of conscience of the prospective convert is equally protected.It said the state laws do not forbid voluntary conversion based on free and informed choice and they narrowly regulate only those acts of conversion that are vitiated by force, fraud, allurement, undue influence or sham marriage.”It is submitted that even if propagation is treated as part of religious practice, still proselytisation achieved through force, fraud, coercion, undue influence, allurement or sham marriage cannot be asserted as an essential or integral religious practice. It is further submitted that such practices militate against the basic ethos of the Constitution- dignity, equality, freedom of conscience, and public order– and offend the founding civilisational principles of mutual respect and non-compulsion in matters of faith. Activities that impair another’s freedom of conscience or threaten public order are amenable to regulation, and the State is duty bound to do the same. Accordingly, the impugned statutes do not trench upon core religious tenets but only interdict impermissible means, leaving voluntary, informed choice untouched,” the petition said.”The impugned statutes are religion-neutral and content-neutral measures of general application that protect freedom of conscience rather than target any creed. They neither proscribe voluntary conversion nor criminalise inter-faith marriage per se; they address only conversions vitiated by defined wrongful means or marriages undertaken solely as an instrumentality for such conversion. The provisions are precisely framed to incorporate appropriate men’s rea and graded penalties, and are coupled with procedural safeguards (verification/hearing by designated authorities),” it said.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos’RJD Put Katta To Congress’ Head’: PM Modi Slams Mahagathbandhan In Bihar RallyIndia Shocked As UAE Frees Mahadev Scam Accused, Cites No Extradition Request Amid Paper TrailBihar Deputy CM Vijay Sinha Accuses RJD MLC Of Drunken Chaos, Faces Off Amid Voting In LakhisaraiDelhi’s Fake ‘Professor’ and Team Pulled Off a ₹50 Crore Money Heist Inspired by Netflix Crime Drama’Can’t Think Of Another Trade Talk…’: Piyush Goyal, Todd McClay Comment On India–New Zealand FTAINS Ikshak Commissioned With 80% Indigenous Tech, New Hydrographic Survey Vessel Joins Indian NavyDonald Trump’s Trade Weapon Tested: US Supreme Court Weighs Limits of Emergency Powers, Authority’BIG ZERO’: PM Modi Takes Massive Dig At RJD, Cong’s ‘Jungle Raj’ Report Card for Bihar in ArariaIndians Trapped In Myanmar’s KK Park Cyber Scam Hub Finally Being Repatriated By Air ForceSri Lankan Opposition Leader Backs India’s UNSC Seat, Calls It Recognition of Global Power Shift123Photostories9 beautiful and unique baby girl names that begin with letter ‘R’How to spot a fake person: 5 clear signs you shouldn’t miss, as per psychology14 Days with Chia Seeds: Harvard doctor explains the benefits and best way to eat themHow to control uric acid: 5 morning habits to keep it in check naturallyHow to grow juicy Plums in your balcony garden; step-by-step guidelinesElle Fanning to Kareena Kapoor: 5 best celebrity looks of the dayAdding these two cooking essentials may help in making less oily and non-greasy PoorisBollywood tales of change and courage that define coming of ageFrom feeling nervous to wearing matching outfits; Yuvika Chaudhary and Prince Narula share moments as they reveal daughter Ekleen’s faceBigg Boss Tamil 9 contestants’ salary: Here’s how much money VJ Paaru, Divya, Diwakar, Kani and others charging per week123Hot PicksStock market holidayBank HolidayBihar Election 2025Gold rate todaySilver rate todayPublic Holidays NovemberBank Holidays NovemberTop TrendingOumar KaneBlue Jays Wives Emotional WivesGhazala Firdous HashmiFake Online TradingMLB World Series ChampionsMath Problem Solving StrategiesBengaluru AirportSaudi Arabia Makkah Grand MosqueVanessa BryantCarolina Panthers
NEW DELHI: Akhil Bhartiya Sant Samiti, which claims to represent 127 sects of Sanathan Dharma, moved Supreme Court on Thursday in support of anti-conversion laws framed by different states and whose validity has come under court’s scanner.Seeking intervention in the ongoing litigation on a batch of petitions challenging the laws passed by Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, the body filed its application through advocate Atulesh Kumar and supported the laws. It contended that the freedom to propagate religion does not confer a right to convert another person and the freedom of conscience of the prospective convert is equally protected.It said the state laws do not forbid voluntary conversion based on free and informed choice and they narrowly regulate only those acts of conversion that are vitiated by force, fraud, allurement, undue influence or sham marriage.“It is submitted that even if propagation is treated as part of religious practice, still proselytisation achieved through force, fraud, coercion, undue influence, allurement or sham marriage cannot be asserted as an essential or integral religious practice. It is further submitted that such practices militate against the basic ethos of the Constitution- dignity, equality, freedom of conscience, and public order– and offend the founding civilisational principles of mutual respect and non-compulsion in matters of faith. Activities that impair another’s freedom of conscience or threaten public order are amenable to regulation, and the State is duty bound to do the same. Accordingly, the impugned statutes do not trench upon core religious tenets but only interdict impermissible means, leaving voluntary, informed choice untouched,” the petition said.“The impugned statutes are religion-neutral and content-neutral measures of general application that protect freedom of conscience rather than target any creed. They neither proscribe voluntary conversion nor criminalise inter-faith marriage per se; they address only conversions vitiated by defined wrongful means or marriages undertaken solely as an instrumentality for such conversion. The provisions are precisely framed to incorporate appropriate men’s rea and graded penalties, and are coupled with procedural safeguards (verification/hearing by designated authorities),” it said.
