The Allahabad High Court has said that after the implementation of the Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, it is mandatory to follow sections 8 and 9 of the law in case of marriage of a couple of different religions.
A Single Bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra heard the petition filed by Smt Nikita @ Najrana and Another.
By means of the petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate security to petitioners and further restraining the respondents from causing any interference in the peaceful living of petitioners as husband and wife.
Standing Counsel points out that petitioner No1 earlier belonged to Muslim religion and the petitioner No 2 belongs to Hindu religion and in view of the provisions of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, unless compliance of the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 is made by the parties belonging to different religions, no sanctity/validity can be attached to such marriage.
The Court noted that,
The Act of 2021 was enacted with the following object:
“An Act to provide for prohibition of unlawful conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means of by marriage and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
Section 6 of the Act renders a marriage performed for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion or vice-versa as void, however, the proviso attached to the said section speaks of applicability of the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 as regards such marriages.
From the scheme of the Act of 2021, conversion from one religion to another is not impermissible. Rather, Sections 8 and 9 of the Act deal with the provisions for a valid conversion and its effect.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a conversion certificate was issued in the year 2017 whereas the aforesaid Act has come into existence in 2021 and, therefore, the provisions of Section 8 and 9 of the Act, 2021, would not be applicable.
The Court observed that,
Jurisprudence of statutory interpretation has moved from “literal interpretation” to “purposive interpretation”, which advances the purpose and object of a legislation. The Supreme Court, in the catena of judgments, has dealt with the issue of literal interpretation vis-a-vis purposive interpretation.
The Apex Court, in Central India Spinning and Weaving Manufacturing Comp versus Municipal Committee, Wardha, AIR 1958 SC 341, has held that it is a recognised principle of construction that general words and phrases, however wide and comprehensive they may be in their literal sense, must usually be construed as being limited to the actual objects of the Act.
The Supreme Court, in Girdhari Lal & Sons versus Balbir Nath Mathur; 1986(2) SCC 237, has held that the primary and foremost task of a Court in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed. Having ascertained the intention, the Court must then strive to so interpret the statute as to promote and advance the object and purpose of the enactment. For this purpose, where necessary the Court may even depart from the rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning. There need be no meek and mute submission to the plainness of the language. To avoid patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity or to avoid invalidation of a law, the court would be well justified in departing from the so-called golden rule of construction so as to give effect to the object and purpose of the enactment by supplementing the written word if necessary.
In the case, as per the writ petition itself, the alleged marriage between the petitioners has been performed on 2.1.2024 by which date the aforesaid Act of 2021 had come into existence. Therefore, before the date of marriage, the petitioners should have complied with the provisions of the Act, in case they wanted to attach sanctity/legality to the conversion, which is now controlled and governed by the enactment passed by the UP Legislature.
“The scheme of the Act envisages that if conversion is done in relation to marriage of the persons belonging to different religions, irrespective of any past event, which might or might not attach sanctity to conversion, in case a marriage is solemnized after the Act of 2021 has come into force, i.e, after 27.11.2020 as per Section 1 (3) of the Act, the parties have to ensure compliance of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and, in such event, conversion, if any, done in the past, may be a relevant fact during the course of inquiry conducted by the District Magistrate as per Sections 8 and 9 of the Act subject to satisfaction of the District Magistrate but it, in itself, cannot be a substantive proof of a valid conversion so as to attach sanctity to a marriage performed after the Act, 2021 has come into force. Therefore, the concerned party to a proposed inter-faith/inter-religion marriage has to comply with the provisions of the Act”, the Court further observed.
Hence, the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that since Act has come into force in 2020-21, but conversion was done in 2017 at Arya Samaj Mandir and, therefore, no fresh conversion is required, is not acceptable and is discarded by the High Court.
In view of the above, the Court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition after ensuring compliance of Sections 8 and 9 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.