September 16, 2025

Big drama in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, September 16, 2025! The top court asked many States to give their views on petitions that want a stay on their anti-conversion laws. A bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran clearly said they will think about the stay only after states reply. The court gave four weeks for states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka to answer. Then, petitioners get two weeks to respond. The hearing is set for six weeks later. Senior advocate C.U. Singh, fighting against these laws, called the changes “more draconian,” especially in Uttar Pradesh. He warned, “anybody who marries in an interfaith marriage, bail would become impossible.” Singh said many states already passed these tough laws, with Rajasthan being the newest one. Singh also revealed that amendments in Uttar Pradesh allow even third parties to complain. This caused “huge amounts of harassment” for people in interfaith marriages and even church events where mobs sometimes attack. He asked the court to let them change their petitions to show this. Senior advocate Indira Jaising requested that the court continue an interim stay on the Madhya Pradesh law. Advocate Vrinda Grover said she filed applications for stays on similar laws in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. Additional Solicitor General K.M. Natraj spoke for some states and opposed any quick relief. He said, “After three-four years, suddenly they file for stay. We will file our replies.” In a twist, the court removed a separate petition by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, who wanted a ban on deceitful religious conversions. Chief Justice asked, “Who will find out whether it is a deceitful conversion?” To keep things clear, the court appointed advocate Shrishti as nodal counsel for petitioners and advocate Ruchira as nodal counsel for states. Earlier, the Centre questioned the right of activist Teesta Setalwad's NGO, Citizens for Justice and Peace, to challenge these laws. The government accused the NGO of using its name for political reasons and raising big money by exploiting riot victims. The Ministry of Home Affairs said, "From a series of judicial proceedings, it is now established that the petitioner 1 allows its name to be used through its two office-bearers at the behest of some selected political interest and also earns out of such activity." Back in January 2021, the Supreme Court agreed to examine laws like the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand anti-conversion acts. Uttar Pradesh's law covers all religious conversions, not just those because of marriage, and sets strict procedures. Uttarakhand’s law punishes conversions by "force or allurement" with up to two years in jail, where allurement can be money, jobs, or gifts. The NGO’s plea argues these laws break Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution, which protect personal liberty and freedom to practice religion. The courtroom battle over love, faith, and freedom is far from over!

Read More at Thehindu →

Tags: Supreme court, Anti-conversion laws, Interfaith marriage, Uttar pradesh, Religious conversion, Constitutional validity,