Supreme Court to Hear Challenge Against Amended UP Religious Conversion Law

New Delhi, 2 May, 2025 — The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to consider a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of the 2024 amendments to the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan noted submissions from senior advocate S Muralidhar, who argued that several provisions of the amended law are “vague and overly broad”, infringing upon the rights to free speech and religious propagation.

Although the Bench did not issue a formal notice on the plea, it stated that the matter would be heard along with other pending petitions on 13 May.

The PIL was filed by Roop Rekha Verma, a Lucknow-based petitioner, along with others, through advocate Purnima Krishna. It contends that the law violates fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 (equality before the law), 19 (freedom of speech and expression), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 25 (freedom of religion) of the Constitution.

Challenging Sections 2 and 3 of the Act, the plea argues they are “vague, overly broad, and lack clear standards”, making it difficult to define what constitutes an offence. This, it claims, paves the way for arbitrary enforcement and discriminatory application, particularly targeting individuals seeking to practise or propagate their faith.

“Penal laws must be precise. Vague provisions grant excessive discretion to authorities, failing to provide reasonable notice and increasing the risk of wrongful prosecution,” the plea stated.

The petition also raised concerns about the 2024 amendment’s expansion of who can file complaints, noting the absence of procedural safeguards. It criticised the presumption of malicious intent behind all religious conversions, stating that it undermines individual autonomy and treats adult citizens with suspicion.

It further objected to the law’s disproportionate punishments and the reversal of the burden of proof, arguing that it erodes the presumption of innocence and exposes the accused to prolonged legal battles, financial strain, and social stigma.

The petition particularly condemned Section 5, which it said wrongly assumes all women are vulnerable to illegal conversion, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and undermining gender equality.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing multiple petitions challenging similar state-level anti-conversion laws across the country.

Courtesy: The Hindu