On Thursday (2nd January), the Supreme Court lambasted a man for attempting to “sensationalise” the observations made by the Bareilly Court wherein the district court had warned against Pakistan and Bangladesh-style religious conversions while convicting one Mohammed Alim in a Love Jihad case. The PIL to expunge the statements was filed by one Anas. The PIL said that the comments made by the Bareilly court were against the Muslim community.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti dismissed the petition by Anas as unpressed, observing that the petitioner had no jurisdiction (was not a party before the UP court) and was “sensationalising” the subject. During the hearing, Advocate Manas P Hameed (representing the petitioner) admitted in response to a court question that the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the UP Court.
Responding to this, Justice Roy said, “You are a busybody… just interfering with something which is absolutely of no business to you. You can’t be filing an Article 32 petition for a matter like this”.
Expressing a similar sentiment, Justice Bhatti questioned how the court could expunge remarks in independent litigation like the instant one: “Assuming a particular conclusion is warranted from the evidence before the Sessions court, and a conclusion is recorded which is not [relatable] to the petitioner before us, should it be expunged in an independent matter like this? We can’t also examine that. Sensationalizing matter in this fashion is not correct”.
The court therefore made it clear that observations made on the basis of evidence can’t be expunged on the basis of Article 32 petition. Article 32 of the constitution essentially says that citizens can approach the court to enforce their fundamental rights. Anas, therefore, approached the Supreme Court claiming that the observations made by the Bareilly Court in a ‘Love Jihad’ case, based on evidence, infringed upon his fundamental rights as a Muslim. The court made clear that first, he had no locus standi in the case and second, he cannot claim that observations based on evidence infringed upon his fundamental rights.
The PIL challenged an order by an Uttar Pradesh court that defined ‘Love Jihad’ as an act in which Muslim men systematically target’ Hindu women for conversion to Islam through marriage and fraudulently marry Hindu women ‘under the pretence of love’ in order to convert them.
As reported, on 30th September 2024, in a landmark judgment, one Mohammed Alim was convicted in a “love jihad” case by a Bareilly court for deceiving a woman into a relationship under the false pretence of marriage, subsequently coercing her into sexual relations, and subjecting her to violence and threats. Notably, Alim had introduced himself as “Anand” and appeared to be a Hindu.
The court observed that incidents like this contribute to attempts to create conditions similar to those in Pakistan and Bangladesh, where illegal religious conversions through coercion are rampant. OpIndia accessed the copy of the judgment. Mohammed Alim has been convicted under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
In its detailed judgment, the court categorically labelled the case as an example of “Love Jihad.” The court observed that Alim posed as a Hindu to lure the victim into a relationship under false pretences. The court further observed that Alim’s actions, using deceit to coerce the victim into sexual relations and later pressuring her to convert to Islam, were part of a larger and disturbing trend. The judge remarked, “This is not just a matter of personal deceit; it is an orchestrated attempt to manipulate and exploit vulnerable individuals in the name of religion.”
The court further compared this incident to the situation in Pakistan and Bangladesh, where cases of forced religious conversions are rampant. The judge warned that such incidents need to be curtailed; otherwise, it could lead to a breakdown of the secular fabric of Indian society. The court said, “By allowing such practices to continue unchecked, we risk creating conditions in India similar to those in Pakistan and Bangladesh, where religious freedom is curtailed, and women are systematically targeted for conversion.”
The judgment also criticised the failure to invoke the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021, in the case. The court noted, “Despite clear evidence of coercion and deceit with the intent of religious conversion, no action was taken under the specific provisions of the law designed to prevent such conversions. This oversight must be corrected in future cases.”
The court also raised concerns about potential foreign funding behind such activities. The court noted that the systematic targeting of vulnerable women for religious conversion through deceit may not be an isolated phenomenon. The judge remarked, “The possibility of foreign funding in such cases cannot be ruled out, as these actions appear to be part of a larger conspiracy aimed at destabilising the social fabric of the country.”
The court made stern observations asserting that incidents like these represent more than individual wrongdoings and pose a serious threat to harmony and secularism. The court said, “The systematic targeting of women under the guise of love to fulfil larger demographic and religious goals is not only a crime against the individual but against the nation’s unity.”
