On January 2, the Supreme Court's division bench, comprised of Justices M. R. Shah and C. T. Ravikumar, issued notice on the special leave petition filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the High Court, restraining the government from taking coercive action against any person who violates Section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, which requires a person desiring to convert religion to make a declaration in this regard to the District Magistrate.

The solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for petitioner submitted that “On the ground that there is one stay granted by the Gujarat High Court. Section 10(1) says any person who desires to convert shall submit a declaration to that effect 60 days prior to that conversion in prescribed form to the district magistrate stating that he desires to convert on his own without allurement, coercion, undue influence. There is no penal consequence. Subsection (2) says any religious priest or person who intends to organise conversion will give 60 days prior notice. Giving of notice is upheld by the Constitution bench. Kindly see (4). Penal consequence is not on the person who converts. Whoever contravenes the provisions of subsection (2) will be punished with imprisonment. So under 10(1), he is supposed to intimate the collector”

The bench after hearing the submission of solicitor general stated that “SG Tushar Mehta has taken us through provisions of section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh freedom of religion act 2021 which reads as under:…. He has also taken us through section 5 of the earlier legislation namely the MP Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam 1968. It is submitted that the vires and constitutional validity of section 5 of the act 1968 was the subject matter of challenge before this hon’ble court and the Constitution bench of this court in the reported decision in the case of 1977 1 SCC 677 has upheld the constitutionality/vires of this earlier legislation. It is submitted that Section 5 of the 1968 act is para materia to section 10(2) of the act 2021. It is further submitted by the SG that so far as section 10(1) of the 2021 act is concerned, any person who desires to convert is required to submit a declaration to that effect 60 days prior to such conversion in the prescribed form to the district magistrate stating that he desires to convert on his/her own free will and without any force, coercion, undue influence or allurement. It is submitted that on contravention of the provisions of subsection (1), no penal consequences is provided under the act of 2021 and that as per 10(4) of the 2021 Act, the penal consequences are provided only with respect to the contravention of the provision of subsection (2) of section 10 of the act 2021. It is submitted that therefore in view of the decision of the Constitution bench of this court in the case of Stainislaus, upholding the vires of section 5 of the 1968 Act which is para materia to section 10(2) of the 2021 act, the High Court has seriously erred in staying section 10 of the act 2021. It is submitted that looking to the larger public interest for which the act 2021 has been enacted to safeguard against the unlawful and illegal conversions by coercion, undue influence or allurement, it is required to consider the issue involved and the order of stay granted by the High Court regarding section 10 of the 2021. Considering the aforesaid aspects, the issue involved is of greater public importance, notice returnable on 13th February, 2023”

Case Title: The State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Samuel Daniel
Citation: SLP(C) No. 22733/2022