AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court on Thursday sought a response from the state government over a challenge to the recently enacted ‘anti-love jihad’ law, with the question that if somebody gets married, must he first go to jail and then satisfy the court that the inter-religion marriage and conversion was not by force or allurement.
The bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Biren Vaishnav put the question to the state government after petitions complained that the anti-conversion law, in the form of an amendment to the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, put the burden of proof on the person who administers the conversion to prove that the conversion was not without coercion, fraud or allurement.
The petitioners, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and convenor of the Minority Coordination Committee Mujahid Nafees, have challenged the provisions added to the anti-conversion laws.
They contended that the law renders the institution of marriage illegal and further criminalises it, whereas marriage is an inherently legal and most basic fundamental right guaranteed to every person.
They have demanded the deletion of the amended Section 3, which prescribes “conversion by marriage” as void and provides punishment for it.
The petitioners argued that by inclusion of “better lifestyle” and “divine blessings and displeasure” in the definition of allurement, the law renders all religious propagation criminal. This is against Article 25 of the Constitution.
It has also been contended that this law will lead to a disproportionate consequences by terrorising interfaith couples and act as a deterrent, as any aggrieved person has the freedom to lodge a complaint.
“This can lead to grave misuse by the state and by favoured non-state actors. Besides, by its very term and object, the impugned Act, turns specific and targeted eyes of suspicions on Muslims and Islam, which is a recipe to engender suspicion, division and even hatred within Indian society,” the petition reads.
The petitions further said that in the context of the discourse around love jihad, it is clear that the law is “enacted with nothing but a communal objective and is thereby opposed to constitutional morality, and the basic features and fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21, 25, and 26 of the Constitution”.
The petitioners’ advocate argued that the law aims to criminalize marriage on vague terms like divine blessing and better lifestyle, which are not material objects.
The state government requested the court to grant time to prepare a defence to the challenge. The court has posted further hearing on August 17.
