The Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act came into operation in 2018, a year after the Bharatiya Janata Party government took over power in the state. It was sharpened in 2022. The law prohibited religious conversion by force, fraud, misrepresentation, allurement or marriage. The 2022 amendment made the offence cognisable and non-bailable, with a higher fine and a penalty of three to 10 years of imprisonment. State officials have to be notified before a conversion. The law has been criticised for being an infringement on the constitutional right to practise, profess or propagate the religion of choice, a fundamental principle of a secular democracy. Yet complaints under UFRA have increased since the 2022 amendment, indicating the state’s eagerness to prosecute personal choices if they involve religion. The cases suggest that the administration’s interest is in inter-faith marriage when it is between a member of the majority religion and of one particular minority community and in supposed attacks on Hinduism; there are accusations of mass conversions by another minority religion too. Bullying, deception or coercion are certainly not acceptable, whether they happen in matters of conversion or in any other sphere. But the focus with the BJP government is on religion alone.

Revealingly, analysis shows that UFRA’s offences are difficult to prove. The five cases under UFRA that have gone to full trial have all culminated in acquittals. The failure to convict under the law so far exposes a basic legal difficulty: getting convincing evidence. Reports show that 62 cases were registered under UFRA since 2018 — only five reached full trial in seven years — while a scrutiny of 51 cases shows that seven were dismissed because of the prosecution’s inability to show coercion or inducement. Bail was granted in three-fourths of the rest, often because of contradictory statements, consensual relationships and procedural lapses. A few cases await trial while bail has been denied in three. Does this rather sad account suggest that it is not as easy to intervene in and disrupt people’s personal choices as the government might have expected? Even a case by the Antarrashtriya Hindu Parishad against a pastor for ‘inducing’ conversions ended in acquittal. The prosecution’s weaknesses are a sign of the state’s flawed approach to rights. In another significant development, the Supreme Court has referred to a three-judge bench multiple petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of anti-conversions laws that have been passed by at least 12 states. This further underlines the creases existing in the folds of such problematic legislations.