The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the plea would require a detailed examination to see whether it warrants even issuance of notice to the authorities.
Declining to issue notice at this stage on a petition seeking steps to prohibit forceful religious conversions, the Delhi High Court Friday grilled the petitioner, BJP leader Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay, and told him that data available on WhatsApp or social media cannot form the basis of a petition.
The division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that the plea would require a detailed examination to see whether it warrants even issuance of notice to the authorities. “Why should we issue notice? We have to first be satisfied with the petition. This is a petition which can have severe ramifications either way. There is no basis, no documentation, not one instance given by you,” said the bench, while listing the matter for hearing on July 25.
The court also said that the laws against forceful conversions are already in place and asserted that conversion in general is not prohibited. “It is the right of an individual to profess any religion, religion of his birth or religion that it chooses to profess. That is the freedom of the Constitution. What you are saying is somebody is being forced to convert. When somebody is forced to covert, that is a separate issue,” added the bench.
Questioning Upadhyay on data, the court said that the petition does not mention any instances or provide any statistics about the claims of mass conversions. It also asked whether anybody has come forward to complain. “It is somebody saying that this has happened. Has it happened or not happened, something has to come on record. You have given three judgments… the rest is your averment,” observed the court.
Upadhyay in the petition claimed that the situation is alarming as many “individuals and organisations” are carrying out mass conversions in rural areas of socially, economically underprivileged people. He said that the conversions are rooted in “a surge of foreign-funded international conversion campaigns” and that “unethical predatory conversion strategies” are commonly used.
The petition also sought a declaration that religious conversion by intimidation, threat and “deceivingly luring” through gifts and monetary benefits and by “using black magic” and superstition violates the Constitution but also is contrary to the rule of law and secularism.
When Upadhyay submitted that he has data from social media, the court said, “Social media is not data. We have instances of photographs being morphed. Some incident being shown that look this is something that has happened, it turns out that it has happened somewhere in some other country 20 years ago and it is shown happening yesterday or today”.
The court further said that newspapers, social media and even WhatsApp may or may not contain facts, but they cannot be the basis of petitions. When Upadhyay argued that Delhi has become a hub of foreign-funded NGOs, the court said, “That is a separate issue. Foreign funding of NGOs is not your petition.”
It also said that there is no such thing as fraud in religion and that all religions have beliefs and they may or may not have scientific foundation. “That does not mean that belief is fraud. That is the belief of an individual,” added the court.
However, the court also said that it was not commenting upon the bonafide of Upadhyay but wants to first be satisfied that there is some basis to the case: “We are not willing to issue notice. We are willing to hear you in detail and then we will make up our mind whether notice is warranted or not.” The court also said that since the petition has been filed, it has come to the notice of the Centre which can take action on its own. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma submitted that the petition raised an important issue. However, the court said that some statistics have to back the petition. “There has to be some material,” said the bench.
