Hindutva Conspiracy Clear in Rajasthan "Freedom of Religion Bill"

Law experts say bigoted legislation can be challenged in Supreme Court

Non-BJP Political parties to meet, decide on major campaign with Civil groups

It was my privilege to be Chief Guest at a very special public meeting called by over 20 Civil Society groups of Rajasthan in the State Capital on 1^st April to consider the People’s response to the so called Rajasthan Freedom of Religion Bill which has been adopted by the Cabinet of Chief minister Vasundhra Raje Scindia and is sure of passage in the Legislative Assembly where the Bharatiya Janata Party, the political arm of the fundamentalist Hindutva Parivar, has a stranglehold majority.

Father Raymond Coelho of the Rajasthan Christian Forum presided, and social activist and PUCL leader Kavita Shrivastava moderated the proceedings which were marked by the presence of representatives of almost all opposition political parties, as well as a colleague of eminent jurist and Supreme Court Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhawan. Dhawan sent a written critique making clear that the Bill can be challenged in the Supreme Court of India. [I give later the full text of the Controversial Bill and the comments of Advocate Rajeev Dhawan’s group]

It has been decided to call an all-Party meeting to ensure a vigorous, if doomed, challenge in the Assembly, appeals to the Governor and the President of India , as well as mass mobilisation and education of the people, and finally a challenge in the Courts.

I and a mixed team (Christian pastor, Supreme Court Advocate Catholic Nun, Hindu journalist) had last month investigated the crisis in Kota where the MA Thomas father and son of the Emmanuel Mission are being methodically and systemically targeted by the police and district authorities under pressure of the BJP leaders, including the state Home minister. The State judiciary is allowing itself to be part of the game. We had then seen the negative aspects of one of India ’s largest states with a beautiful people whose past is full of acceptance. Their kings had got their daughters married into the Mogul dynasty. Their kings and prime ministers had invited Jesuits to open schools and colleges, bequeathing them vast tracts of land. Their leaders have sought the presence of nuns to take care of the destitute and the orphans. And yet we saw the district collectorate (offices of the administrative chief of the district) virtually look like temples and police and officialdom share a religious bigotry with their political bosses.

The meeting in Jaipur introduced us to the political fighters of this land of warriors --- Marxists with just one legislator in the Assembly but the passion of a multitude, Muslim and Sikhs, and scores of Hindu-led Civil groups keen that such a law besmirch their proud history of secular society. Kavita Shrivastava herself led the charge of civil society.

Having seen the law operate in Orissa, Arunachal and Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh, and later introduced in Gujarat and then Tamil Nadu, I know first hand what its real intentions are – to deny Dalits the Freedom of Choice in matters of Faith and liberty, to bring the State to assist only one religion, and to divide citizens and their privileges and rights on the basis of religion. Such laws – the second one keeps Dalit Christians out of the paternal love of Indian law as provided in the Constitution -- communalise an officially secular India . I have had official reason to ask Chief secretaries and Collectors the number of forced or fraudulent conversions they have seen, caught or punished. In twenty-five years and four states, the answer has been Zero, really Zero. In fact, AICC chief Dr Joseph D Souza and I, with much help from Udit Raj, had the undiluted pleasure to see the conversion of 700 or so Dalits in a church in Chennai – to Buddhism! With the state’s brutal police later beating up the contractor who provided the chairs !!.

In fact the manner in which Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalitha first imposd the anti conversion law to woo the Hindutva BJP and its cadres, and the alacritiy with which she then withdrew the law (if not yet fully) goes to show the utter sham of the reasons behind the politicians falling back to such a law when the elections loom large.

Rajasthan has close to 70 million people, with not more than 100,000 Christians. Why, then, is the government afraid of this micro minority, each speaker at Jaipur meting wondered. To them it was clear that it was to make it punitive for Dalits to seek the liberty of freedom of faith, it was to Hinduise the polarise the body polity. It was to win political advantage. The vagueness of clauses of the law was to make it convenient for subservient police and civil officials to harass the people. (Jaipur, 2nd April 2006)

--------------------------------------

OFFICAL ENGLISH TEXT OF RAJASTHAN BILL NUMBER 12 OF 2006

A Bill for prohibition of conversion from one religion to another by the use of force or allurement or by fraudulent means and for matters incidental thereto:

Be it enacted by the Rajasthan State Legislature in the Fifty-seventh year of the Republic of India as follows:

1. Short Title, extent and commencement:

(1) This Act may be called the Rajasthan Swatantrya Act, 2006

(2) It extends to the whole State of Rajasthan

(3)It shall come into force at once.

2. Definitions – In this Act, unless this otherwise requires,

(a) “unlawful” means which is in contravention of the provisions of this Act

(b) “allurement” means offer of any temptation in the form of –

(i)any gift or ratification, either in cash or kind;

(ii)grant of any material benefit, either monetary or otherwise

©”conversion” means renouncing one’s own religion and adopting another

Explanation: Own religion means religion of one’s forefathers;

(d) “force” includes show of force or threat of injury of any kind including threat of divine displeasure or social excommunication;

(e) “fraudulent” means and includes misrepresentation or any other fraudulent contrivance.

3. Prohibition of conversion – No person shall convert or attempt to convert either directly or otherwise any person from one religion to another by use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet such conversion.

4. Punishment for contravention of provisions of section 3 – Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 3 shall, without prejudice to any other criminal liability, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to a fine, which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.

5. Offence to be cognisable and non-bailable – Any offence under this Act shall be cognisable and non-bailable and shall not be investigated by an office below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

6. Power to make rules -- (1) The State government may make rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act.

(2) All rules made under this act shall be laid, as soon as may be, after they are so made, before the House of the State legislature, while it is in session, f a period of not less than fourteen days day which may be comprised in one session or in two successive sessions and if, before the expiry of the session in which they are so laid or the session immediately following, the House of the State Legislature makes any modification in any of such rules or resolves that any such rule should not be made, such rule shall, thereafter, have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, so however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder..

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

It has been observed by the State Government that some religious and other institutions, bodies and individuals are found to the involved in unlawful conversion from one religion to another by allurement or by fraudulent means or forcibly which at times has caused annoyance in the community belonging to the other religion. The inter-religious fabric is weakened by such illegal activities and causes land and order problem for the law enforcing machinery of the State.

In order to curb such illegal activities and to maintain harmony amongst persons of various religions, it has been considered expedient to enact a special law for the purpose

The Bill seeks to achieve the aforesaid objective

Hence the Bill

Gulabdchand Katariya

Minister in Charge

----------------------------------------------------

Preliminary submissions on Rajasthan Dharma Swatantrya Bill, 2006 by Supreme Court Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhawan’s `Public Interest Litigation Support and Research Centre’

1.1 This is a response to the Rajasthan Dharma Swatantrya Bill, 2006 which has presently been approved by the Rajasthan Cabinet and will be placed in the Legislature for approval.

II WHAT THE CONSTITUTION MAKERS DEVISED: RIGHT TO BELIEF, CONVERSION, PROPAGATION OF FAITH AND FREE SPEECH

2.1 The Constitution makers were concerned with the following fundamental rights:

2.2 While the initial draft of the Constitution did not include the term propagate, after deliberations in the Fundamental Rights Sub Committee, Minorities Sub Committee , the Advisory Committee and the Constituent Assembly, it was concluded that propagation would form a part of the right to religion.

2.3 This ambit of the Constitutional protection of conversion was examined by the Supreme Court in the Rev. Stainislus case in which the Madhya Pradesh and the Orissa laws were challenged on the ground of violation of Art. 25. The salient features of the judgement are the following:

(i) It held that what Article 25(1) grants is not the right to convert another person to one's own religion by exposition of its tenets."

(ii) It was held that since any attempt at conversion was likely to result in a breach of public order affecting the community at large, the State legislatures would have the competence to enact the legislation.

3.1 In order to critique the Bill, the purpose and intent of the Bill has to be examined. While the malafide of a legislative enactment cannot be challenged, the Supreme Court has rightly held that ‘the Court can tear the veil to decide the real nature of the statute’. Tearing the veil will show:

3.2 The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the present Bill states as follows:

In order to curb such illegal activities and to maintain harmony amongst persons of various religions, it has been considered expedient to enact a special law for the purpose.

3.3 In the context of restrictions on fundamental rights, public order has specific technical meaning which has been narrowly tailored by the Supreme Court. The Court has held that public order is something more than the mere maintenance of law and order and acts which disturb law and order may not amount to a threat to the public order. Thus, public order is a narrower and more rigid classification of the former and the two cannot be used interchangeably.

3.4 According to the statement of objects and reasons, the introduction of this Bill was desirable and necessary because of the following reasons:

Both of these reasons are completely inadequate to justify a restraint of the manner imposed in the Bill especially as:

(i) As has been seen, law and order is not congruous to public order and restrictions cannot be imposed on Constitutional freedoms on the ground of law and order. In the present context, if there are any inter-religious tensions because of conversion, the state has been amply empowered by the Indian Penal Code to deal with such situations. Chapter XV of the IPC gives the State wide ranging powers to deal with law and order problems arising out of religious tensions.

(ii) Annoyance caused to a religious community is completely unacceptable as a ground for restricting Constitutional freedoms. The State is empowered under the IPC and the CrPC to regulate behaviour such as speech, publications, demonstrations, etc which may cause annoyance to religious communities.

Most legislative amendments have a provision stating that they shall come into force when the Government, in its discretion, deems fit to notify it by publishing it in the Official Gazette. However, in this case, there is no such discretion as the Bill itself provides that it shall come into force at once. In this respect, the Bill is placed on par with legislations such as TADA, POTA, which involve matters of such grave public implication and urgency such that the Government can have no discretion in them coming into force.

(i) The definition of unlawful is overbroad, circular and open to misinterpretation especially as it is dependant on the other provisions of the Bill, which are in themselves over inclusive and vague.

(ii) This definition of allurement is identical to the definition of the term ‘inducement’ in the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act 1967, which was struck down by the Orissa High Court on the ground that it was open to the reasonable objection on the ground that it was too broad and surpassed into the field of morality. While the judgement was later overruled in the Rev. Stainislus case, this aspect of the legislation was not discussed and is thus open to challenge

(iii) The definition of conversion shows the partisan nature of the Bill, which includes conversions, but does not include re-conversions. This means that, for example, conversions from Hinduism to other religions are covered in the section, but not re-conversions back to the original faith. It is pertinent to note that this narrow definition of conversion is an addition in the present Rajasthan Bill.

(iv) The definitions of force and fraudulent are extremely broad and cover a vast number of situations which could possibly be used to include activities of propagation. Any religious propaganda could be considered to be a misrepresentation or force within the meanings of these definitions.

(i) This Section has criminalizes conversion or attempt to conversion, directly or otherwise. This is an extremely wide clause and within the scope of attempting, directly or otherwise, a whole range of religious activities can be included, including the propagation of religion.

(ii) It may also extend to cover incidental matters such as conversions according to personal laws. For instance, if a Hindu woman marries a Muslim and converts, and a Meher amount is fixed during the marriage according to Muslim personal laws, this would be covered under this section as conversion by allurement.

(iii) Further, the Section has also placed conversion and attempt to convert has been placed on the same footing, and the punishment is the same for both of them. This is in violation of the principle of criminal jurisprudence (recognized in the Indian Penal Code) that the attempt to commit an offence is less serious that the actual commission of the offence and thus must be differentially punished.

(iv) It also overlooks the various nuances of criminal liability for the abetment of an offence and simply provides a common liability.

(i) The punishment clause demonstrates the manner in which the Government has tried to criminalize religious conversions. The penalty is harsher than the penalty for offences like rioting, causing death by negligence, wrongful restraint, etc. Such a harsh punishment clause, combined with the broad inclusion in Section 3 creates a situation in which normal religious activities of propagation are hampered.

(ii) As has been mentioned earlier, the Bill ignores the principles of criminal jurisprudence with respect to the criminal liability for attempt and abetment.

(i) While this Section provides for investigation by a senior level Police officer, it removes the prior sanction from the civilian district authorities which had been provided in preceding anti-conversion legislations. This concentration of authority in the hands of the Police and the lack of supervision from the district administration makes the Bill vulnerable to abuse.

(ii) Also, we see that it makes the offence non-bailable and this underscores the attempt of the Government to make any offence under this Bill a grave one.

(iii) There are no other provisions to ensure that the powers are not abused and that due process requirements are met.

(iv) The possibility of abuse of the powers under this Bill, especially at the hands of the Police leads to the Bill directly curtailing the right of religions, especially minorities, to propagate.

5.1 The present Bill can be challenged not only on the ground that is violative of the Constitutional freedoms of speech and religion, but also because it violates secularism, which is a part if the basic structure of the Constitution. In the case of the present legislation, it is clear that the State is actively intervening in a partisan manner to protect a particular religion from a perceived crisis. There can be no doubt that this Bill has been drafted with the legislative intent and purpose of preferring the rights of one religion at the cost of the minority religions. It targets particular communities both to stop efforts to convert and to create a situation of intimidation where others are unwilling to convert. Even in practice, the enforcement of the Bill will amount to community targeting and will be implemented in a manner which will exacerbate communal tensions. Thus, the Bill, both in purpose and in its inevitable effect is a violation of the secular structure of the Constitution.

6.1 It is evident from the foregoing discussion that the present Rajasthan Bill is constitutionally invalid and flawed due to the following:

· The Bill seeks to impose restrict the right to freedom of religion and speech on the grounds of law and order, which is constitutionally impermissible.

· The Bill direct and inevitable effect of the Bill is not only to regulate conversions, but also to cripple the right of religions, especially minority religions to propagate their faith.

· This affects the rights of an individual to be converted, which is a part of the fundamental right to religion.

· The Bill is partisan in its purpose and intent as it seeks to protect the community from which the conversions are taking place.

· The provisions of the Bill are over inclusive and provide enough loopholes for abuse of the powers under the Bill.

· It violates the requirements of due process and ignores principle of criminal jurisprudence.

6.2 In view of the above, the constitutionality of the Bill is open to challenge. The possible objection to this may be the Stainislus judgement of the Supreme Court, but those objections may be addressed as follows:

· The Supreme Court judgment in Stanislaus was directed towards only forced conversion or coercive conversion and thus has to be strictly interpreted.

· The judgement has not addressed the particular provisions of the legislations and they still remain open to challenge.

6.3 While the constitutionality of the Bill may be challenged, it is worthwhile as matter of strategy, to keep the following factors in mind:

· There has to be internal religious reform to create a structure for conversions which demonstrate that the conversion was genuine, informed and without force or coercion.

· Individual conversions where the intention of the convertee to freely convert can be clearly demonstrated should, as far as practicable, be preferred to mass conversions.

· As a precaution, it is necessary to work on the presumption of the validity of the Act, when passed, and devise litigation strategies which will minimize to the extent possible the rigors of the same.