Today, the Gujarat government filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that the requirement of obtaining permission from district magistrates prior to conversion is intended to protect against forcible conversions and to protect religious freedom. The state government informed the apex court that the steps stipulated by the state's anti-conversion law, key provisions of which were held in abeyance by the High Court in 2021, were "precautions" to ensure that the process of renouncing one religion and adopting another is "genuine, voluntary, and bona fide," as well as "free from any force, allurement, and fraudulent means."

Earlier in September, a Division Bench comprised of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar issued notice and requested responses from the Centre and the states. On November 14, the Supreme Court stated that forced religious conversion jeopardised national security and violated citizens' religious freedom. "If the alleged conversion of religion is found to be correct and true, it is a very serious issue that may ultimately affect the security of the nation as well as the freedom of religion and conscience of the citizens," the Bench stated. The Union government was also directed to collect information from the states about the steps they were taking to prevent forcible religious conversions and to compile all of the information gathered.

"The right to freedom of religion does not include a fundamental right to convert other people to a particular religion. The said right certainly does not include the right to convert an individual through fraud, deception, coercion, allurement or other such means," the state government has submitted, questioning the Gujarat High Court order that stayed certain provisions of the 2003 Act, also dubbed as the state's "anti-love jihad law". "The meaning and purport of the word 'propagate' in Article 25 of the Constitution was discussed and debated in great detail in the constituent assembly, and its inclusion was passed only after the clarification that the fundamental right under Article 25 would not include the right to convert," the government affidavit reminds.

The constitutionality of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, which were pari materia with the Gujarat Act, was also challenged before a Constitution Bench, which held that fraudulent or induced conversion infringed on an individual's right to freedom of conscience as well as hampered public order, and thus the State was well within its power to regulate or restrict the same." Enactments such as the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003 have been upheld as valid by this Court," the Gujarat government stated before the Bench.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India 
Citation: WP (C) 63/2022