Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

LegislativeCompetence

It is submitted that That the state has every right to enact this law

It is humbly submitted that the law was enacted in accordance with the constitution of
Dreamland. It is further contended that subject matter of the law in question , falls within the scope
of Entry No. I of List II of the Seventh Schedule relating to the State List regarding the public
order.

Since any attempt at conversion was likely to result in a breach of public order affecting the community at
large, the State legislature would have the competence to enact legislation which is likely to avoid
disturbances to the public order by prohibiting conversion from one religion to another in a manner
reprehensible to the conscience of the community.

It is humbly submitted that Art 25 is subject to public order and morality.At the time there were continuous
widespread conversion fiascos happening which resulted in the disturbance of Public Peace .The state was
entitled to bring this law.

In the case of Rev Rau As regards the question of legislative competence, the High Court took
note of some judgment of this Court and held that as "the phrase 'public order' conveys a wider
connotation as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the different cases. We are
of the opinion that the subject matter of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam,
1968 falls within the scope of Entry No. I of List II of the Seventh Schedule relating to the State
List regarding the public order.

The freedom of religion is subject to interest of public orer so that it would not authorize the outrage of
the religious feelings of another class ,with a deliberative intent.. Ramji lal modi v state of up

These words save the power of a competent legislature to prohibit deleterious practices such as
the sacrifice of human beings in the name ofreligion . (safidun sahib vs Bombay)

. In a similar case In the aftermath of the Meenakshipuram conversion of February 1981, the Ministry of
Home Affairs, Government of India, is reported to have advised the State Governments and Union Territory
administrations to enact laws to regulate change of religion on the lines of the existing Acts in Madhya
Pradesh, Orissa and Arunachal Pradesh (TheStatesman, Delhi, November 16, 1982).

. Reference may also be made to the decision in Ramjilal Modi v. State of U.P. where this Court has
held that the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution is
expressly made subject to public order, morality and health, and that "it cannot be predicated that
freedom of religion can have no bearing whatever on the maintenance of public order or that a law
creating an offence relating to religion cannot under any circumstances be said to have been enacted
in the interest of public order". It has been held that these two Articles in terms contemplate that
restrictions may be imposed on the rights guaranteed by them in the interests of public or der.
Reference may as well be made to the decision in Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal where it has
been held that if a thing disturbs the current of the life of the community, and does not merely affect
an individual, it would amount to disturbance of the public order. Thus if an attempt is made to raise
communal passions, e.g. on the ground that some one has been ''forcibly" converted to another
religion, it would, in all probability, give rise to an apprehension of a breach of the public order,
affecting the community at large. The impugned Acts therefore fall within the purview of the Entry I of
List II of the Seventh Schedule as they are meant to avoid disturbances to the public order by
prohibiting conversion from one religion to another in a manner reprehensible to the conscience of the
community. The two Acts do not provide for the regulation of religion and do not find any justification
for the argument that they fall under Entry 97 of List I of the Seventh Schedule.

Chief Justice of India A.N. Ray, heading a five-judge Bench, in Rev. Stainislaus vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, upheld the validity of two regional anti-conversion laws of the 1960s — the Madhya Pradesh
Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act.

It is contented that the law only prohibiots forced conversions .It doesnot prohibit conversions done by
consent Sec 3 of the act lays down that “ No Person shall convert or attempt to convert ,either directly
or otherwise ,any person from one religion to another by use of force or allurement or by any fraudulent
means nor shall any person abet such conversion

Sec 5 provides as under

Sec 5(1) Whoever converts any person from one religion to another
either by performing any ceremony by himself for such conversion as a
religious priest or takes part dfiorectly or iondirectly in such ceremony
shall take prior permiossion for such propose cionversion from the
district magistrate concerned by applying in such form as may be
prescribed by rules
Sec 5(2) the person who is convertyed shall send an intimation to the ditrict magistrate of the district
concerned in which rthe ceremony has taken place of the act of such conversion within such form as
may be prescribed by rules

It is humbly submitted that these clauses save the freedom of conscience of the person.It is further
contended that the law is prohibiting forced conversions done under the influence of fraud or by use of
force.This is done only to ensure that freedom of conscience of every person is protected by law