Law against conversion!

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.

Panchayati Raj

Intro:

In Gandhiji's vision of Poorna Swaraj, empowerment of villages held a key position. Given the humongous population our villages sustain, it becomes all the more important to make the functioning of villages more democratic and efficient.Theres is need for democratic decentralisation to usher in genuine grass roots democracy. Participative Governance is a cornerstone of a Democracy. Article 40 of the Indian Constitution under the Directive Principles of State Policy lays down that the State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary. On the recommendations of Balwant Rai Mehta Committee, 73rd C.Amendment Act, 1992 was enacted which provided Constitutional Status to the Gram Panchayats.  Despite the constitutional mandate, the growth of self-governing local bodies has been uneven and slow.

Issues

Though 33% reservations have been provided to women. Their participation is however limited due to their male spouses ruling by proxy. Holding Panchayat meetings outside the villages limits their participation further.

States often postpone the elections on some pretext or other. 

Even mandatory provisions like the constitution of District Planning Committees and Metropolitan Planning Committees have been ignored in many States.

The major sources of income for local governments like property tax etc. are woefully inadequate to meet their obligation. Allocated funds require an average of 6 months to reach the Panchayats. Due to the fear of losing popularity among villagers, the village headmen are reluctant to impose taxes.

Way Forward

Kerala has performed fairly well in the Devolution Index. Its model needs to be emulated in the other states.

Improve their finances by searching for avenues of raising resources.

Application of the principle of subsidiarity in the context of decentralisation. The State governments should transfer the mandate of legislating on 29 subjects to the Panchayats as mentioned in the 11th schedule. There should be a clear delineation of functions of local governments vis-à-vis State Governments. 

A part of royalty should be given to Panchayats for the loss resulting due to mineral excavation.

P.S: Rajasthan was the first state to implement Panchayati Raj. Ashok Mehta Committee's recommendations were made after that of Balwant Rai Mehta Committee's recommendations. The former recommended replacing 3-tier govt. with 2-tier govt.

National Judicial Appointments Commission

NJAC seeks to replace the collegium system of appointment and transfer of judges.The NJAC will recommend to the President for the appointment and transfer of judges including the CJI of higher judiciary, viz., Supreme Court and High Courts.Constitutional status to NJAC has been provided by the 99th Amendment.A new article, Article 124A has been inserted into the Constitution.

Composition:

The NJAC has the Chief Justice of India (CJI) as chairperson and two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court as members, apart from the Union Law Minister and two eminent personalities, of which one of them would be nominated from among the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, minorities, OBCs or women.In NJAC, the two eminent persons would be nominated by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, the CJI and the Leader of the Opposition.A decision of the Commission can be vetoed by any two members.

Pros:

NJAC would usher in an era of accountable Judiciary.After all,the job of a judge should be to judge cases and not to appoint brother judges.Independence of judiciary does not include sitting judges making judicial appointments.Judges functioned independently in the first 40 years, before the collegium system came into existence.Emergency was only one aberration.The tussle between the executive and the judiciary for control over the process of judicial appointments has its origins in the First Judges case.In that case,the S court came down in the favour of the executive.In 1993,however in the Second Judges case, the apex court overruled the First Judges case.This decision led to the birth of the collegium system, the working of which was set up in the Third Judges case.The collegium system had become nothing more than a secret society whose deliberations were not a matter of public record. Collegium  consisted of CJI+4 senior most judges and CJI+2 senior most judges for the appointment of SC and HC judges respectively.

Cons:

Independence of Judiciary would be lost.The fear is that the NJAC may encourage High Court judges to give pro-government rulings with the object of gaining eventual promotion to the Supreme Court.

Legislative interfering in Judicial process goes against the "Doctrine of separation of power". Today, the government is the largest litigant in the courts.The influence of the government in any form in the appointment process would affect the independence of judiciary.