Supreme Court on Anti-Conversion Laws and Privacy
Context
The Supreme Court recently examined the validity of anti-conversion laws enacted by several states (like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, etc.).
The court quashed multiple FIRs filed under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act.
Case: Citizens for Justice and Peace v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Key Constitutional Provisions
Article 25: Freedom of conscience and right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty (includes right to privacy).
Articles 26–28: Related to religious denominations, educational institutions, and religious instruction.
Supreme Court Observations
Freedom of Religion = Right to Privacy
The right to privacy is inherent within Article 25.
A person has an intrinsic right to choose, change, or express faith — free from State interference.
Privacy as a Precondition
Privacy is a precondition for exercising the right to freedom of conscience.
Freedom of thought and belief falls within the “zone of private thought process.”
Reference to Nine-Judge Bench Verdict (2017 – Puttaswamy Case)
Recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
This right extends to religious choices, personal beliefs, and marriage decisions.
Parallels with Marriage Autonomy
The right to marry a person of one’s choice is part of the right to life and privacy (Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. (2018)).
Choices in marriage and faith are both personal autonomous decisions beyond State control.
Autonomy in Faith and Marriage
Both are expressions of individual liberty.
The State cannot regulate, limit, or interfere in one’s decision of faith or partner.
Implications
State anti-conversion laws must pass the “privacy test” they cannot infringe on:
Individual autonomy
Right to conscience
Freedom of choice in religion or belief
Strengthens personal liberty and limits excessive State control over private choices.
Key Constitutional Cases
Citizens for Justice and Peace v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Constitutionality of State Anti-Conversion Laws (UP, MP, HP, etc.)
Key Points:
The Supreme Court is examining whether these laws violate Fundamental Rights such as:
Article 21: Right to personal liberty and privacy
Article 25: Freedom of conscience and religion
Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of expression
The Court has linked freedom of religion with right to privacy, holding that belief, conversion, or marriage based on faith fall within an individual’s private sphere.
Builds on earlier rulings:
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) — “Hadiya case”
Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006)
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
Bench: 9 Judges
Held: Right to privacy is a Fundamental Right under Article 21.
Includes autonomy in decisions relating to marriage, faith, body, and personal life.
Basis for linking privacy with religious and marital choice.
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) — The Hadiya Case
Issue: Whether an adult woman’s conversion and marriage to a person of another faith was valid.
Held: An adult’s choice of religion and spouse is part of individual autonomy and liberty; the State or family cannot interfere.
Reaffirmed that personal choice in faith and marriage is constitutionally protected.
Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006)
Held: Every major individual has the right to marry a person of their choice regardless of caste or religion.
Directed police protection to inter-faith couples.
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)
Issue: Hindu men converting to Islam to remarry.
Held: Conversion to Islam does not dissolve a Hindu marriage solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act.
Second marriage without dissolving the first = Bigamy (Sec 494 IPC).
Urged adoption of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
The Shakti Vahini v. Union of India case represents a pivotal moment in Indian law, where the Supreme Court reinforced the fundamental right of individuals to choose their life partners and live free from the threat of honour killings
Prelims Practice MCQ
Q. Which of the following statements are correct regarding the Supreme Court’s view on freedom of religion and privacy?
Right to privacy is a prerequisite for exercising freedom of conscience under Article 25.
The State can regulate individual choice of religion if it affects public order.
Privacy was recognised as a fundamental right in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017).
Options:
(a) 1 and 3 only ✅
(b) 1 and 2 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2, and 3
Explanation:
Statement 1 — Correct: The SC held that privacy is a condition precedent for freedom of conscience under Article 25, as it relates to one’s inner thought and belief.
Statement 2 — Incorrect: While the State can restrict Article 25 rights on grounds of public order, morality, and health, it cannot regulate one’s private choice of faith; only external manifestations can be regulated.
Statement 3 — Correct: The K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) case established the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Q. The Supreme Court recently linked the right to freedom of religion with which of the following?
(a) Right to equality
(b) Right to privacy ✅
(c) Right to education
(d) Right to constitutional remedies
Explanation:
The Supreme Court ruled that Article 25 (freedom of religion) is interlinked with the Right to Privacy under Article 21, as both protect an individual’s inner autonomy and conscience.
This means that the State must not interfere in personal choices related to faith, belief, or expression thereof.
Q. Which of the following judgments did not directly concern the right to marry a person of one’s choice?
(a) Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.
(b) Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(c) Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India ✅
(d) Shakti Vahini v. Union of India
Explanation:
Sarla Mudgal addressed bigamy and misuse of conversion, not freedom to marry; the others dealt directly with marriage autonomy or protection from societal interference.