Keypoints:
- There is no reason why a person above 18 can’t be allowed to choose his religion, said the bench.
- The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL which was seeking directions to ban black magic, superstitions and deceitful religious conversions.
On Friday, the Supreme Court said that people above the age of 18 are free to choose their own religion. The court lashed out at a “very, very harmful kind” of “public interest” petition which claimed that there is mass religious conversions which happen by “hook or crook” across the country.
“Religious conversion by ‘carrot and stick’ and by ‘hook or crook’ not only offends Articles 14, 21, 25 but is also against the principles of secularism, which is an integral part of the Constitution,” the plea stated.
“The Centre and states have failed to control the menace of black magic, superstition and deceitful religious conversion, though it’s their duty under Article 51A,” it said.
The Bench was led by Rohinton F. Nariman. He said that people have right under the constitution to profess, practise and propogate religion.
“Why should a person above 18 years not choose his religion? What kind of a writ petition is this? We will impose heavy costs on you… Withdraw it or argue and risk the consequences,” Justice Nariman asked petitioner-advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
Upadhyay was then reminded about the fundamental right under article Article 25 of the Constitution to freely profess,practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health. Justice Nariman asked the petitioner that,”Why do you think there is the word ‘propagate?”
Justice Nariman also added by saying that every individual is the final judge of their own choice of religion or who should be their life partner. He said that the court cannot sit in judgement of a person’s choice of religion or life partner.
Upadhyay was again reminded by Justice Nariman about Constitution Bench judgment which upheld inviolability of the right to privacy, equating it with the rights to life, of dignity and liberty.
The Court dismissed the petition by Upadhyay. The Bench did not allow the pleas to approach the Law Commission or the High Court.
The bench observed that the PIL was like a “publicity interest litigation” and that there was no reason why a person above 18 can’t choose his or her religion.
