New Delhi, Jan 3.
A Madhya Pradesh anti-conversion law provision, mandating a 60-day notice to the District Magistrate in case of all inter-faith marriages, will remain stayed for now, with the Supreme Court on Tuesday refusing a state government plea to vacate the stay order.
The MP High court had on Nov 20, 2022, found Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, prima facie unconstitutional.
This section requires individuals, who intend to convert upon marriage, and the priest who would carry out the conversion, to notify the district magistrate of their intention 60 days in advance.
A couple can legally marry only after giving the DM such notice. Failure to notify the state of the intent to convert will render the wedding null and void.
An individual can also be prosecuted for fraudulent conversion on the promise of marriage. The officiating a priest faces a jail term of three to five years and a minimum fine of Rs 50,000.
The MP High court had objected to these penalties attached to non-reporting of such marriages.
“Section 10 makes it obligatory for a citizen desiring conversion to give a declaration in this regard to the District Magistrate, which in our opinion ex facie, unconstitutional in the teeth of aforesaid judgments of this court.
“Thus, till further orders, respondent (state) shall not prosecute adult citizens if they solemnize marriage on their own volition and shall not take coercive action for violation of Section 10…,” the High Court had said.
The state government had appealed to the top court against this decision. The appeal came up today before a bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar.
The bench issued notices on the plea for interim relief and the appeal. The interested parties will have to file their appeals in court by Feb 7, 2023.
The bench refused to stay the High Court order despite a statement by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that there was no ban either on marriage or conversion. “The district magistrate may only be intimated. That is all that a stay would do,” Mehta argued.
But the bench would not hear of this. “All conversions cannot be said to be illegal,” the bench said. “We can say intimation (is a must) but penal action on contravention?”
