Anti-conversion laws passed by various states are being examined by the Supreme Court. The court made an exceedingly important statement while quashing first information reports filed under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act: the right to choose a religion, it argued, is purely a private matter. Anti-conversion laws have thus been put to the privacy test. The Supreme Court stated that Article 25 of the Constitution, which enshrines the right to freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion, implies the right to privacy. Part III of the Constitution may not have a separate article for the right to privacy but it is implied in the broader scheme of which Article 25 is a part. Every individual has the right to choose a faith and to express it or not as desired. In this, an individual has full autonomy in the sense of “non-interference by the State”. It is a purely private thought process. The Supreme Court drew a parallel with the individual’s right to choose a partner. That, too, is a legitimate constitutional right and no agreement by the family, community or clan is required if two consenting adults wish to marry. In this, the freedom of conscience and the right to life as enshrined in Article 21 are related as they “transcend” the control of the State.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is of overwhelming significance at a time when state governments, mostly those run by the Bharatiya Janata Party, are formulating laws to stop conversion — presumably with the approval of the Centre. Even efforts to control inter-faith marriages are being made through the love jihad ruse — proven to be a myth. The court has made the all-important distinction between private and public that has been endangered by the entry of the State into the bedroom and into worship spaces. The thrust of the State to control not just private lives but also thought processes and the conscience is a dangerous tendency. It sabotages the freedom that is part of democracy and rejects the principles of tolerance and peaceful co-existence. The Supreme Court’s reasoning takes the wind out of the sails of extreme right-wing groups, which target religion, inter-community and inter-caste marriages. Most important, it raises significant questions about anti-conversion laws by expanding the interpretation of privacy and leaving the State with no excuse to interfere.