The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from the Uttar Pradesh government on a petition challenging certain provisions of the 2024 amendments to the state’s law on unlawful religious conversions, terming them as “vague” and “overly broad.”
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the state government and tagged the matter with other pending petitions raising similar constitutional concerns over anti-conversion legislations across various states.
The petition, filed by academician Roop Rekha Verma from Lucknow and others, specifically contests the 2024 amendments to the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, arguing that the changes violate fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, including Articles 14 (equality before law), 19 (freedom of speech), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 25 (freedom of religion).
Filed through advocate Purnima Krishna, the plea argues that Sections 2 and 3 of the amended Act are unconstitutionally vague, lacking clear legal standards to determine what constitutes an offense. “This ambiguity infringes upon free speech and religious propagation, enabling arbitrary enforcement and discriminatory application,” the petition contended.
The petition also criticised the expansion of the category of persons authorised to lodge complaints under the Act, alleging that it was done without instituting proper procedural safeguards. It warned that such provisions may lead to misuse and wrongful prosecution.
Another major concern raised was the presumption of mal-intent behind all religious conversions, which the plea argued undermines adult individuals’ autonomy and subjects their personal decisions to state scrutiny. “The government, by assuming the role of protector of religious identities, encroaches on the individual’s right to choose their faith,” the plea asserted.
Challenging the proportionality of the penalties prescribed under the law, the petition claimed the punishments were excessive and disproportionate to the alleged offenses. It also objected to Section 5 of the Act, arguing that it reinforces harmful stereotypes about women’s vulnerability, thereby infringing upon their personal agency.
While the state’s counsel informed the court that similar challenges were already pending before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India, the petitioners emphasised that their plea was narrowly focused on the 2024 amendments alone.
The apex court had earlier agreed to hear the matter on May 2. The case will now be heard along with other petitions challenging the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws in several states.
