On Tuesday, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between religious propagation and forced conversion, stating that the Constitution safeguards the former. Justice B V Nagarathna, a member of the nine-judge bench reviewing the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, emphasized this point: “There is a clear difference between the propagation of religion and coercive conversion. What is constitutionally protected is indeed the propagation of religion.”<\/p>\n
This remark came during discussions led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who highlighted the historical context of the constitutional provisions related to religious freedom. The bench, overseen by Chief Justice Surya Kant, also included Justices M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.<\/p>\n
Mehta, while referencing his written statements, noted the consensus during the constituent assembly debates that conversion achieved through force or coercion is not true conversion. He explained, “You can engage in propagation; you can persuade others by presenting the merits of your faith, but not through intimidation or manipulation.”<\/p>\n
Mehta traced the origins of these provisions back to the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights and Minorities, which was chaired by Sardar Vallabhai Patel. He mentioned the involvement of notable figures such as J B Kripalani, M R Masani, and Dr B R Ambedkar in the drafting process. The Solicitor General pointed out that K M Munshi’s proposal for Article VI aimed to ensure all citizens have equal rights to freedom of conscience and to ‘profess’ and ‘practice’ their religion, although the term ‘propagate’ was notably absent.<\/p>\n
He referred to draft clauses indicating that individuals below the age of 18 cannot change their religious beliefs without parental consent and that coercive conversions would not be legally recognized. The subsequent drafts circulated by Ambedkar also affirmed the right to preach and convert, as long as these actions adhered to public order and moral standards.<\/p>\n
On March 26, 1947, the draft of Article VI was adopted, affirming the right to profess and practice religion in a manner compatible with public order, morality, or health. This was further refined on March 27, 1947, to ensure individuals under 18 were protected from being forced into religious conversions.<\/p>\n
The first combined Draft Report of the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights, published on April 3, 1947, retained these anti-conversion provisions, which underwent minor revisions. The Solicitor General’s submission noted that discussions around the anti-conversion clauses highlighted concerns from various members about the implications for proselytizing religions like Christianity and Islam, as well as potential impacts on family life.<\/p>\n
Debates continued, with some questioning the necessity of the anti-conversion clauses, as existing laws, including the Indian Penal Code, already addressed these issues. Ultimately, the clauses were modified to include judicial oversight for recognized conversions, and the word ‘propagate’ was added to affirm the right to spread one’s faith.<\/p>\n
The Solicitor General concluded that the discussions around the anti-conversion clauses were resolved with the understanding that existing laws already penalized forced conversions, leading to the conclusion that the matters should be entrusted to legislative authority. Consequently, the anti-conversion clauses were ultimately removed from the draft.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between religious propagation and forced conversion, stating that the Constitution safeguards the former. Justice B V Nagarathna, a member of the nine-judge bench reviewing the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, emphasized this point: “There is a clear difference between the propagation of religion and coercive conversion. What is constitutionally […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4666,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[40,155],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-india","category-in-legal"],"yoast_head":"\n