Introduction

The Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly passed the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2024, on July 30. This amendment toughens the 2021 anti-conversion law, citing the need to counter alleged “organized and well-planned” involvement of “foreign and anti-national elements” in unlawful conversions. The new law introduces harsher penalties and stringent bail conditions, sparking concerns about potential misuse and constitutional challenges.

The Story So Far

• The 2024 amendment to U.P.’s anti-conversion law significantly strengthens the original 2021 legislation. According to the Bill’s statement of reasons, the amendments aim to make the law “as stringent as possible” to combat alleged demographic changes due to unlawful conversions orchestrated by foreign and anti-national entities.
• Between January 1, 2021, and April 30, 2023, 427 cases were registered under the Act.

Why Was the Amendment Proposed?

• The government argues that stricter measures are necessary to address the involvement of foreign and anti-national elements in unlawful conversions.
• The proposed changes are intended to fortify the law against such activities and enhance its deterrence capability.

Does It Increase Penalties?

• Yes, the amendment significantly increases penalties. Previously, a person convicted of unlawful conversion faced a minimum prison term of one year and a maximum of five years, with a fine of ₹15,000.

• Under the new law, the minimum term is five years, and the maximum is ten years, with fines increased to ₹50,000.
• For conversions involving minors, women, or individuals from Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, the penalties have been raised from 2-10 years to 5-14 years, with fines increased from ₹25,000 to ₹1 lakh.

The amendment also introduces two new categories of offenses:

1. Securing “foreign” funds or funds from illegal institutions for unlawful conversion, punishable by 7-14 years in prison and a fine of ₹10 lakh.

2. Inducing fear of life or property, assaulting, using force, promising marriage, conspiring, or trafficking for conversion purposes, punishable by a minimum of 20 years imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment.

What About Other States?

• Several BJP-ruled states have similar anti-conversion laws, but U.P.’s stands out in several ways.
• For instance, while states like Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand require prior notice of intent to convert, U.P. mandates a 60-day notice along with a police inquiry into the true intention behind the conversion.
• Unlike other states, which limit the filing of FIRs to the aggrieved individual or their immediate family, U.P. ‘s amendment allows any person to file an FIR.
• Additionally, the stringent “twin conditions of bail” in U.P. ‘s law are unique. These conditions, similar to those under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, set a high threshold for securing bail.
• Other states do not prescribe life imprisonment for unlawful conversion, with sentences typically ranging between 2 to 10 years.

What Happens Next?

• The constitutional validity of the amendment is expected to be challenged in the Supreme Court.
• A batch of petitions challenging the parent legislation and similar laws in other states is pending adjudication.
• In May, a Supreme Court Bench remarked that certain provisions of the 2021 Act might contravene Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of religion.

Who Can Register a Complaint?

• The original Act allowed only the aggrieved person or their immediate family to file a complaint.
• Despite this, police reportedly permitted FIRs by right-wing activists and other unauthorised third parties.
• The amendment now officially allows any person to file an FIR regarding violations of the Act.

What About Provisions for Bail?

• The amendment introduces stringent bail conditions. All offences related to unlawful conversion are now cognisable and non-bailable, adjudicated only by a sessions court or higher judicial forums.
• Under the revised Section 7, an accused cannot be granted bail without first providing the public prosecutor an opportunity to contest the bail application.
• If the public prosecutor opposes the bail plea, the court may grant bail only if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit any crime if released.
• This reverse burden of proof makes it nearly impossible to obtain bail until the trial’s completion.

Conclusion

The 2024 amendment to U.P. ‘s anti-conversion law has sparked significant debate and concern. Its stringent provisions and potential for misuse raise critical questions about its constitutionality and impact on individual freedoms. As the law faces challenges in the courts, its future remains uncertain, but its implications for religious freedom and legal processes in India are profound.