The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of the 2024 amendments to the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. The amendments, according to the petitioners, infringe upon fundamental rights and grant sweeping powers to authorities without adequate safeguards.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan took note of submissions made by senior advocate S. Muralidhar, who argued that the amended provisions are “vague and overly broad,” thereby violating the constitutional guarantees of free speech and religious freedom.
The PIL, filed by Roop Rekha Verma and others through advocate Purnima Krishna, asserts that the law breaches Articles 14, 19, 21, and 25 of the Constitution, which protect equality before the law, freedom of expression, personal liberty, and freedom of religion, respectively.
Sections 2 and 3 of the amended Act were particularly targeted, with the plea contending that the vague language opens the door to arbitrary enforcement and discriminatory application. “Penal laws must be precise. Vague provisions violate constitutional principles by granting excessive discretion to authorities,” the petition stated.
The plea also criticised the law for presuming malintent behind all religious conversions, thereby treating adult individuals as incapable of making personal faith-based decisions without state validation. It argued that expanding the class of persons eligible to file complaints, without ensuring procedural safeguards, leaves the law prone to misuse.
“The government, by assuming the role of protector of religious identities, encroaches on the individual’s right to choose their faith,” the petition added, further asserting that the punishment prescribed is disproportionate and punitive in nature.
The petition also raised concerns over Section 5, which it claimed perpetuates gender-based stereotypes by assuming that all women are vulnerable to illegal conversions. It called this an affront to female autonomy and a contradiction of constitutional values.
Moreover, the PIL objected to the reverse burden of proof clause in the law, which, it said, undermines the presumption of innocence — a core principle of criminal jurisprudence.
While the bench agreed to list the matter along with other pending challenges to similar anti-conversion laws on May 13, it did not issue a formal notice at this stage.
