On Monday, the Union Government stated in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court that it is "aware of the gravity and seriousness" of the issue of forced religious conversions.

During the previous hearing, the Supreme Court described the issue as "very serious" and directed the Union to make its position clear. The Ministry of Home Affairs stated in the affidavit filed in response to the Court order: "the right to freedom of religion does not include a fundamental right to convert other people to a particular religion. The said right certainly does not include the right to convert an individual through fraud, deception, coercion, allurement or such means"

Referring to the judgment of the top court in Rev. Stainislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., the Union said, "The Hon'ble Court held that the word 'propagate' does not envisage the right to convert a person rather is in the nature of the positive right to spread one's religion by exposition of its tenets." The Supreme Court, in a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice A. N. Ray, had looked into the meaning of the words "promote" and "public order." The Union also argued that the Supreme Court's decision upheld the laws enacted to control and curb the threat of organised, sophisticated large-scale illegal conversions.

The petition requested that the Union and State Governments take stringent measures to prevent forceful religious conversion through intimidation, threats, and deception through gifts and monetary benefits. Upadhyay also requested that the Law Commission of India prepare a report as well as a bill to regulate religious conversions.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India 

Citation: W. P. (C) 63/2022