The anti-conversion law in Uttar Pradesh allows for vigilante violence

Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly session on July 30, 2024. | Photo Credit: PTI

On On July 30, the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly amended the State’s tough anti-revolution law in 2021 to make it even more repressive. The maximum prison sentence was increased to life imprisonment, obtaining bail was made more difficult, and the scope of illegal conversion was expanded to include promiscuity and trafficking. The changes reflect the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s intentions to strengthen its efforts to criminalize interfaith relations and the consensual conversion of religious minorities, as part of its Hindutva ideology.

Amended section

The Council also amended Section 4 of the UP Prevention of Unlawful Conversion Act, 2021, to allow “any person” to act as a complainant. This means that whether or not that person was illegally converted becomes invisible. For example, a right-wing activist may file an FIR against a Christian prayer meeting, accusing its organizers of trying to convert participants to Christianity through persuasion. The police will be authorized to register MONEY on an activist’s complaint even if no one at the meeting has filed a complaint that they were illegally converted.

Editing | Medieval thinkers: On the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Conversion Act, its amendments

Section 4 of the original statute was very clear in its scope. It allowed “any aggrieved person, his parents, brother, sister or any other person related to him by blood, marriage or adoption” to file an ORDER. However, members of third parties, such as the police, Sangh Parivar activists, and elected local representatives, often file complaints under the law. This disregard for the law allowed unruly elements to disrupt peaceful prayer meetings and gatherings saying that these events were used to force or lure “ignorant people” and poor Hindus to convert to Christianity. Muslim men in consensual relationships with Hindu women are also victims of vigilantes.

In September, in an affidavit submitted to the Allahabad High Court, the government doubled down on the right of its police force – and by extension, any third party – to act as litigants under the law. The matter reached the Court after a priest from Jaunpur, Durga Yadav, was arrested for allegedly trying to convert Hindus to Christianity. Mr. Yadav challenged the FIR in the Court saying that the complaint was filed by the police officer and not by the alleged victim. The Court expressed concern over the State’s situation and sought a detailed response from the government, which urged that the police are qualified as ‘sorcerers’ in cases of illegal conversion as they are in charge of law and order. The government also argued that the powers given to the police under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were not governed by Section 4 of the illegal conversion act.

Worryingly, while amending this Section, the government admitted that the power to introduce STATUTES was reinterpreted to “resolve certain difficulties” that have arisen in its “interpretation” in many cases. A large number of suspects have challenged the validity of the FIR filed by third parties. In many cases, the accused got legal relief after the courts inquired about the whereabouts of the complainants.

Although the amended law came into force in August, the question of legality in several cases filed before the amendment is still ongoing. By amending the law, and protecting the ‘unlawful’ RULES introduced before it, the government has given the police the power to criminalize peaceful religious gatherings and assemblies. In a society where public gatherings and prayer meetings are part of the common culture and a means of social development in historically oppressed communities, the power of the police and vigilante groups to criminalize their religious or personal lives or their personal relationships can have a negative impact. .

It’s a matter of translation

Courts have been inconsistent in their interpretation of Article 4. Last February, the Supreme Court, a Bench of the High Court, heard the petition of Jose Prakash George and 36 others, and decided that the ban under Article 4 was complete. It said the complainant, who is a member of the Vishva Hindu Parishad, did not have the capacity to file the FIR. The judges emphasized that the phrase ‘any aggrieved person’ was applicable to the following categories (his parents, siblings, spouse), which narrowed its scope. The Court said that the ‘aggrieved person’ will have to blame himself for the illegal conversion. However, in Daisy Joseph case (2024), another Supreme Court Bench held that UMLOMO can be filed by ‘any person’ under BNSS in terms of duty of information. It added that the matter needs legal scrutiny.

Similarly, in July, a Bareilly court acquitted two Hindu men of illegal conversion charges and ordered the police to take legal action for lying to them on the basis of a complaint by a Hindutva official. The court ruled that the FIR itself was illegal. However, in another case, a lower court in Lucknow convicted 16 people in cases of mass conversion in September, on the complaint of an officer of the UP Anti-Terrorist Squad.

Durga Yadav’s petition is pending in the Supreme Court. Regardless of how the court interprets Article 4, there is no confusion about the amended clause, which gives police and vigilante groups the full support of the legal system to harass and intimidate religious minorities and interfaith couples as part of a political agenda. and threatening personal freedom.

Omar Rashid is a journalist based in New Delhi