The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Union and Chhattisgarh governments in a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Chhattisgarh’s anti-conversion law, directing that it be heard along with pending matters challenging similar laws passed in Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan.
Isai Adivasi Mahasabha, an organisation representing tribal Christians, moved the court against the Chhattisgarh legislation. It added that it would be better if the petitioner pursued the matter in the high court instead of it remaining pending in the Supreme Court. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who appeared for the petitioner, noted that similar laws passed are under challenge in the Supreme Court. Non-compliance with this rule renders the conversion illegal.
The petition challenged the prior declaration under section 4, mandating publication of an applicant’s name for conversion, current faith and proposed religion on the competent authority’s website and on notice boards in the tahsildar office, gram panchayat and local police.
The bench initially said the matter could be referred to the high court. The bench said it is willing to request the high court to expeditiously hear the challenge. The bench told Gonsalves it cannot force the petitioners who have approached the high court to come before it.
The bench informed the petitioner that a similar challenge is pending before the Chhattisgarh High Court. “Once these matters are decided, the matters before the high court will become redundant.
Gonsalves pointed out that he is in touch with the petitioners who filed the case in the high court and that they are of the view the matter ought to have been filed in the Supreme Court. Gonsalves agreed to consult them and consider filing a transfer petition to bring the matters to the Supreme Court.
“These formulations are wide enough to capture ordinary religious preaching, exposition of doctrine, and humanitarian or charitable work that this court has repeatedly held to be constitutionally protected,” the petition said. It added that the law exempts “reversion” to ancestral religion or faith even as the expression “ancestral religion” is not defined.
