Supreme Court Upholds Religious Conversion Law, State Legislative Competence

The Supreme Court dismissed certain civil and criminal appeals challenging the constitutionality of the Madhya Pradesh Act regulating religious conversions, upholding the High Court's judgment that the Act did not violate Article 25(1) of the Constitution. The Court also upheld the legislative competence of State Legislatures to enact such laws under Entry 1 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. However, the Court allowed appeals related to the Orissa Act, declaring it constitutional. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the Madhya Pradesh appeals, while the State was ordered to pay the respondent's costs in the Orissa appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 25(1) of the Constitution.
2. Legislative Competence of State Legislatures to enact the Madhya Pradesh Act and the Orissa Act.
3. Testimonial Compulsion under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Summary:

Issue 1: Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 25(1)
The appellant contended that sections 3, 4, 5(2), and 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India. The High Court held that "what is penalised is conversion by force, fraud or by allurement" and that such interference does not contravene Article 25(1) as it guarantees religious freedom subject to public health. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that Article 25(1) guarantees the right to "profess, practise and propagate religion," but not the right to convert another person to one's own religion. The term 'propagate' means to spread or disseminate one's religion, not to convert others forcibly.

Issue 2: Legislative Competence of State Legislatures
The appellant argued that the Madhya Pradesh Act and the Orissa Act fell under Entry 97 of List I, giving Parliament the exclusive power to legislate. The High Court, however, held that the Acts fell within the scope of Entry 1 of List II of the Seventh Schedule relating to public order. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that the Acts aimed to maintain public order by prohibiting forcible conversions, which could lead to public disorder. The Court referenced previous judgments, including Ramesh Thapper v. The State of Madras and Ramjilal Modi v. State of U.P., to support the broad interpretation of "public order."

Issue 3: Testimonial Compulsion under Article 20(3)
The appellant contended that section 5(1) and section 5(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Act amounted to testimonial compulsion, violating Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The High Court held that section 5, read with Form A of the Rules, merely required intimation to the District Magistrate about conversion and did not compel confession of any offence. The Supreme Court did not address this issue further as it was not raised for their consideration.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeals No. 1489 and 1511 of 1974 and Criminal Appeal No. 255 of 1974, upholding the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment. However, it allowed Civil Appeals No. 344-346 of 1976, setting aside the Orissa High Court's judgment and declaring the Orissa Act constitutional. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the Madhya Pradesh appeals, while the State was ordered to pay the respondent's costs in the Orissa appeal.

---