A slew of cases challenging the constitutionality of religious conversion laws enacted by several state governments, including Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh, were accepted for transfer to the Supreme Court’s consideration on Friday.
On a common transfer petition, a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud sent notices to the Centre and the relevant state governments, seeking that all the cases be joined and handled collectively by the high court due to the common problems involved.
The court gave the state governments three weeks to submit their responses to the transfer plea. The bench also included justice PS Narasimha.
Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani, however, said that he would oppose the move to bring all of the cases before the Supreme Court since the laws are state-specific and it would be appropriate to let the relevant high courts review the case in the first instance.
“I am going to oppose the transfer. I am of a strong view that high courts should be allowed to examine the respective legislation. here are states legislation and they may have different provisions,” Venkataramani argued before the bench, citing cases pending before various high courts, including Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Karnataka, and Haryana.
He continued by saying that if the high courts were allowed to proceed, the supreme court might likewise benefit from an additional degree of review.
Who Pushed Court to move from cases?
Jamiat Ulama-I- Hind, Citizens for Justice and Peace, Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, and National Federation of Indian Women were among the petitioner organisations who pushed for the transfer of all cases to the top court.
The bench was hearing a petition by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay requesting that the Law Commission look into the viability of enacting criminal penalties for acts of forced conversion. Due to overlapping grounds, the other petitions, which contested the legality of laws enacted by several state governments to punish religious conversion for marriages, were combined with Upadhyay’s case.
Senior attorney Arvind Datar, who is defending Upadhyay, said the court on Friday that his client’s sole argument was to refer the case to the Law Commission for review of the viability of a new law to outlaw forced or coerced conversion to religion.
But the bench retorted: “Why should we direct the Law Commission to do this? They will examine issues that they want to or are referred to them by the government. Why should we say they should examine any particular issue?”
By saying that the objections to both Upadhyay’s petition and the transfer request will be heard on the following hearing date, it delayed the hearing for three weeks.
On January 6, the bench had noted that it might rule on the legal implications of religious conversion, and that decision might then direct the Law Commission’s investigation of the topic.
The AG disagreed, claiming that any statement made by the supreme court would limit the Law Commission’s ability to conduct its examination. “Once this court says something, there is nothing that the Law Commission can do. A consultation of the Law Commission is only proper as the first step,” Venkataramani said on that day.