Attempts at mass conversion by certain organizations who sought to convert the Christians and the Muslims back to Hinduism raised a national debate regarding the legal stance on the matter.There was a debate in the Parliament regarding the need of an anti-conversion bill.
Prior to independence, the British did not enact any law. but many Princely States did. For e.g. Rajgarh State Conversion Act 1936. In 1954, the Parliament took up a bill in this regard, but was later dropped because of lack of support.
Articles 25-30 of our Constitution guarantee citizens freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.They also guarantee freedom to manage religious affairs, monetarily contribute to promotion of any religion, and to set up and administer educational institutions.The right to choose a religion of one’s choice is fundamental to the freedom of religion, but as the Supreme Court has held, the right to propagate a religion does not include any ‘right’ to convert other people.A distinction has to be made between “conversions of a religious nature” and ‘ghar vapsi.’ While the former is an exercise of one’s free will and a fundamental right, ‘ghar vapsi’ is a political process carried out by the powerful exponents of religious nationalism – much against the principle of secularism.
The government’s call for a national ban on conversions would amount to a direct attack on the individual’s freedom of conscience to choose one’s faith and on the freedom to profess, practise and propagate the faith of one’s choice. Hence conversion should not be banned per se but conversion by force or inducement should be discouraged. Infact it is banned under IPC 153 A.
According to the law ministry's opinion forwarded recently to the home ministry, the SC had in a 1977 ruling made it clear that 'anti-conversion law' falls within the purview of 'public order', a 'state' subject as per the seventh Schedule of the Constitution. And hence the Union Govt. cannot legislate on the same.
States like Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat have a law that bans Conversion by force or inducement. Forced conversion has been made a cognisable offence.The definitions prescribed for these terms however are decidedly vague. These laws have been used by State governments to target conversions to minority religions, in particular.There is also concern that allowing law enforcement or judicial authorities to determine whether a conversion has been forced allows the state to intervene too heavily in religious matters that involve personal and ethical choices.
Ergo there is no need to have a pan-India legislation on it.This issue should not be politicized and the simple fact that needs to be understood by all is that the minorities need to be protected.
Further Reading:
If one were to be converted to Hinduism, the question arises which caste is assigned to the new convert. This question has become more complicated because the State policy provides for reservation on the basis of caste. Hindu social reform movements have been partly in response to the proselytising Christian missionaries during colonial rule, identifying the possibility of large-scale conversions to Christianity. Arya Samaj was founded by Swami Dayananda in 1875.He set up schools and hospitals on the lines of Christian missionary activities and started a massive campaign to bring back to Hinduism those who had converted to Christianity and Islam. B.R. Ambedkar settled for Buddhism. The Constitution is a secular document, but there are legal provisions that discourage conversions to non-Indic religions. Originally, only Hindus were eligible for reservation under the Scheduled Caste quota, but later Buddhists & Sikhs were included.Hence, this provision discourages conversion to Islam and Christianity.
