Source: The Hindu 

Introduction 

In July 2023, the State of Uttar Pradesh has amended anti-conversion law tougher. The government increased the maximum punishment to life in prison, made it harder for accused people to get bail, and expanded what counts as illegal conversion to include things like promises of marriage. The ruling BJP party made these changes as part of their Hindu nationalist (Hindutva) agenda, specifically to make it harder for people to change their religion and to discourage relationships between people of different faiths. 

What are the Main Issues Raised? 

• The amended law in Uttar Pradesh now allows anyone to file a complaint about religious conversion without being directly involved - Soical activists or police can file cases even when there is no actual victim complaining. 
• Religious minorities (especially Christians and Muslims) are vulnerable to harassment since their prayer meetings and gatherings can be reported as "forced conversion attempts" by any third party, without any evidence. 
• The law gives excessive power to police and vigilante groups to interfere in people's personal religious choices and interfaith relationships, with the maximum punishment increased to life imprisonment. 
• Courts have been inconsistent in handling these cases - some courts reject complaints from uninvolved third parties, while others accept them, creating legal confusion. 
• The changes appear politically motivated to support a Hindu nationalist agenda rather than genuinely protect people from forced conversions, effectively legalizing the harassment of religious minorities and interfaith couples. 
• The law threatens basic personal freedoms and particularly affects historically oppressed communities who use religious gatherings for social support and community building. 

What was the Background and Significance of the Anti-Conversion Laws in India? 

• The Anti-Conversion Laws gained prominence in 2009 with alleged forced conversion cases in Kerala and Karnataka, later spreading to other regions including Myanmar, Pakistan, and the UK. 
• Historical roots trace back to colonial India (1924 Kanpur case) where tensions existed around interfaith marriages and conversions, particularly regarding Hindu women marrying Muslim men. 
• The partition of India (1947) concerns, as both countries conducted "recovery operations" amid claims of forced conversions and sexual exploitation during mass migrations. 
• The Hadiya case (2017) became a landmark example when the Kerala High Court initially invalidated an interfaith marriage, though the Supreme Court later overturned this decision, sparking renewed debate. 
• Concerns about "Love Jihad" (alleged practice of Muslim men targeting Hindu women for conversion through marriage) led several state governments to consider legislative action. 
• Uttar Pradesh took the lead by passing the Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act in 2021, making marriages invalid if the sole purpose is religious conversion. 
• The movement has spread to other states like Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, and Karnataka, who have either passed or are considering similar legislation to prevent forced conversions through marriage. 

UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 

• In the year 2021, the UP Legislative Assembly passed this Act which replaced the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020 which was promulgated in November 2020. 
• The UP-State Assembly cleared the ordinance on 24 November 2020 following which it was approved and signed by State Governor Anandiben Patel on 28 November 2020. 
• Applicable in the State of UP, it is an anti-conversion law enacted by the Government of UP. 
• Came into force on 4th March 2021. 
• This Act provides for prohibition of unlawful conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage. 
• Section 4 of this Act deals with Persons Competent to Lodge FIR It states that -
  • Any aggrieved person, his/ her parents, brother, sister, or any other person who is related to him/ her by blood, marriage, or adoption may lodge FIR of such conversion which contravenes the provisions of Section 3. 

How does the Amendment to the Anti-Conversion Law Expand the Scope of Complaints and What Are the Implications? 

• The original Section 4 was specific, allowing only "aggrieved persons" and their immediate family members (parents, siblings, or relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption) to file complaints about unlawful conversion. 
• The amendment now allows "any person" to act as a complainant, regardless of whether they were directly affected by the alleged conversion, significantly broadening the scope of who can file complaints. 
• This change effectively legitimizes the practice of third-party complaints, including those from police officers, activists, and local representatives, who were already filing such complaints despite lacking legal standing under the original law. 
• The government justified this amendment by claiming it was necessary to "resolve certain difficulties" in interpretation, particularly after cases where courts had questioned the legal standing of third-party complainants. 
• The amendment has retroactive implications, as the government is defending FIRs filed by third parties even before the amendment was enacted, arguing that police officers qualify as 'aggrieved' persons in cases of unlawful conversion. 
• Critics argue this amendment enables potential misuse by allowing anyone to criminalize peaceful religious gatherings and interfaith relationships, particularly affecting minority communities and their social gatherings. 

How has the Amendment to the Anti-Conversion Law Addressed Judicial Ambiguities and What are Its Implications? 

• In February, a Division Bench of the High Court (Jose Prakash George case) ruled that Section 4's scope was limited, stating that only personally aggrieved persons or their immediate family could file complaints, declaring a VHP member's complaint as incompetent. 
• Contrarily, in the Daisy Joseph case (2024), another High Court Bench suggested that anyone could file an FIR under BNSS as an informant, indicating the need for further legal consideration. 
• A Bareilly court demonstrated strict interpretation by acquitting two Hindu men and ordering action against police officers for filing false cases based on a Hindutva activist's complaint, declaring such FIRs illegal. 
• In contrast, a Lucknow lower court convicted 16 people for mass conversion based on a complaint by an Anti-Terrorist Squad officer, showing divergent judicial interpretations. 
• The amendment has now removed all ambiguity by explicitly allowing any person to file complaints, effectively legitimizing third-party interventions and police actions. 
• Critics argue this amendment empowers both police and vigilante groups with legal backing to potentially harass religious minorities and interfaith couples, raising concerns about personal liberty and religious freedom. 

Conclusion  

The amendment to Section 4 of UP's anti-conversion law represents a significant shift from its original scope, removing restrictions on who can file complaints and potentially enabling widespread surveillance of religious minorities and interfaith couples. The inconsistent judicial interpretations of the original law have now been superseded by this amendment, which explicitly legalizes third-party complaints including those from police and activist groups. This change, combined with increased penalties including life imprisonment and stricter bail conditions, suggests a broader political agenda rather than protection against forced conversions.