SC refuses to stay conversions laws

Blurb: But asks UP, U’khand to respond to PILs

Advertisement

Box

Jamiat too moves court

Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind has moved the top court against the UP ordinance and sought to be impleaded as a party in the petition on which notice was issued on Wednesday.

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, January 6

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to stay provisions of an Uttar Pradesh ordinance and an Uttarakhand law aimed at checking unlawful religious conversion for inter-faith marriages.

A three-Judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde, however, issued notice to the two states asking them to respond in four weeks to petitions filed by Vishal Thakre and others and NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace challenging the controversial UP ordinance and the Uttarakhand law.

At the outset, a disinclined CJI said, “The challenge is already pending in high courts. Why don’t you go there? We are not saying you have a bad case. But you must approach the high courts in the first instance instead of coming to the Supreme Court directly.”

Later, the Bench agreed to issue notice after senior advocate CU Singh and lawyers for some other petitioners pointed out that the petitioners had challenged laws of two states and more BJP states were in the process of enacting similar laws.

Terming the provisions as “oppressive” and “obnoxious”, Singh alleged that several innocent persons had been arrested on the basis of the UP ordinance against ‘love jihad’.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the Allahabad High Court was already seized of the matter. Singh wanted the top court to stay the operation of the laws that mandated prior permission for religious conversions for marriage.

“You are asking for a relief which we cannot entertain under Article 32. Whether provision is arbitrary or oppressive needs to be seen. This is the problem when you come directly to the Supreme Court,” said the CJI.

The petitioners questioned the validity of the laws on the ground of alleged violation of fundamental rights of citizens, contending their provisions went against public policy.