Raj CM opposed ‘love jihad’ law, but govt stand contrary
NEW DELHI: Rajasthan chief minister Ashok Gehlot has criticised several BJP-ruled states over new anti-conversion laws, saying these legislations “will leave consenting adults at the mercy of state power”, but his government appeared to take a contrary stand before the Supreme Court in a December 2019 affidavit, in which it did not object to further scrutiny and prior approval by the state machinery into interfaith marriages.
The Rajasthan government supported making it mandatory for anyone wishing to change his or her religion to first inform the district collector, and then wait for an approval; endorsed that there must be a gap of at least a week between the conversion and wedding; and said that those facilitating the conversion as well as the wedding should be made responsible for making sure there no coercion is involved.
These requirements for an interfaith marriage, which have some similarities with the controversial ordinances issued recently by the Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh government against forcible conversion, are currently in force in Rajasthan through a high court order, which the state has chosen to implement and not appeal. To be sure, the state has not promulgated any law of its own to govern conversations, for marriage or any other purpose.
In its affidavit dated, December 16, 2019, the state informed the Supreme Court that the government has issued instructions to the director general of police and to all divisional commissioners and district collectors to enforce the order issued by the high court on making inquiries before conversion and interfaith marriages.
The state government declined to comment on the matter.
“That the state government has decided to implement the order dated December 15, 2017, passed by the Hon’ble high court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, vide circular dated March 8, 2018,” stated the affidavit, which has also attached the circular issued by the state’s home department.
The matter in which the affidavit was filed -- it is pending before the Supreme Court -- is an appeal by a Jodhpur-based woman who converted to Islam and married a Muslim man in 2017. Her brother filed a habeas corpus petition before the Rajasthan high court, alleging forcible conversion and enticement by the man.
In its judgment on December 15, 2017, the high court declined to declare their marriage as void in law, but issued a string of directions to regulate conversions and interfaith marriages in the state.
Taking note of the fact that a 2006 draft law against forcible conversion in the state is yet to receive assent of the Governor, the high court said that till the time the state government came up with a law, the court had a duty to issue guidelines to “check the problem of forcible conversion of religion for the purpose of solemnising marriage only”.
The high court added: “It is obvious that in some of the religions it is a condition precedent that a male or a female must be of some religion.” Besides, that authority or person “shall give information to the District Collector/SDO/SDM, as the case may be”. According to the high court order, the person, who has converted, “shall solemnise the marriage/Nikah after one week of such conversion of religion”.
While the state chose not to challenge the judgment but decided to rather comply with it, the appeal in the SC was filed by one ‘Mr X’ who wanted to remain anonymous. The petitioner contended that the judgement “directly infringed upon the fundamental rights, including the right to live with dignity enunciated by a nine-judge bench in the K S Puttaswamy judgement (right to privacy)”.
“The high court is in error by unlawfully vesting an appointed authority the untrammelled power to ascertain the intention (mental state) of a person intending to convert,” said the petitioner. The appeal was filed in December 2018, when Congress was in power in the state.
In April 2019, the apex court sought a response from the state government. In its reply, the state unequivocally submitted that it “has decided to implement” the high court order.
Senior lawyer Sanjay Hegde said, “Political parties come and go but the government is a continuing entity. It is the government that takes a decision on policy matters which are subject matters of litigation. Here, it appears that the government of Rajasthan has taken a conscious decision to implement the high court order...”