Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 193 (ORI)

SATYA RANJAN MAJHI v. STATE OF ORISSA

2003-03-05

P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, P.K.MOHANTY

body2003
P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by two gentlemen said to be on behalf of the Christian Community. They seek to challenge the constitutional validity and legality of the provisions in Section 2 of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 and Rules 4 and 5 of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Rules, 1989 and the Rules inserted as Rules 2 and 3 by the Orissa Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Rules, 1999. ( 2 ) THE Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') was enacted by the State Legislature under Entry I, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The validity of that enactment and the legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact that law came to be challenged before this Court. This Court, by the decision in Mrs. Yulitha Hyde v. State of Orissa, AIR 1973 Orissa 116, held that the enactment was outside the legislative competence of the State Legislature and Entry I in List II or List III did not authorise the impugned legislation and that the legislation came within Entry 97, List I of the Seventh Schedule. This Court further held that Article 25 (1) of the Constitution of India guaranteed freedom of propagation of religion and conversion as a part of the Christian Religion. This decision was appealed against before the Supreme Court by the State of Orissa. A Constitution Bench, by the decision in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 908 , reversed the decision of this Court. The Supreme Court held that the legislation was one under Entry I, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and was hence legislatively competent. The Supreme Court further held that there was no fundamental right in any one to convert another person to one's own religion and that the freedom of religion and the right to propagate one's religion protected by Art. 25 of the Constitution of India did not include the right to convert another to one's own religion. ( 3 ) IT is in this background that the question whether any of the other rights of the petitioners herein have been violated has to be considered. ( 3 ) IT is in this background that the question whether any of the other rights of the petitioners herein have been violated has to be considered. But, at the threshold, it appears to us that the challenge by the petitioner's insofar as it relates to Section 2 of the Act, is clearly concluded against them by the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. That apart, the petitioners herein are not persons who want to get themselves converted into any religion and the Act and the Rules stand in their way. They are persons who want to convert others into their religion. Their contention that their right under Article 25 of the Constitution of India is violated clearly stands rejected by the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. As we have noticed, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the right to convert another person to one's own religion was not covered by Article 25 (1) of the Constitution of India and there was no fundamental right in any one to convert another person to one's own religion. The argument that no legislation like the one is possible under cover of Article 25 (2) of the Constitution raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot also be accepted since in the above decision, the Supreme Court has very clearly held that the Legislature was competent to enact the law in the interests of maintaining public order covered by Entry I, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution or India. Therefore, the arguments based on the observations in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282 and Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388 do not enable the petitioners to establish that they have a fundamental right to convert and that right is part of the right guaranteed by Article 25 (1) of the Constitution of India. ( 4 ) IN this context, we posed the question whether the petitioners could complain, that any of their rights have been violated by the Act or by the Rules or by the amendment introduced into the Rules. ( 4 ) IN this context, we posed the question whether the petitioners could complain, that any of their rights have been violated by the Act or by the Rules or by the amendment introduced into the Rules. Once it is held that the petitioners have no fundamental right to convert others into their religion, they cannot raise any contention challenging the validity of the Act, which even otherwise they cannot do in this Court in view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. ( 5 ) AS regards the challenge to the Rules, it is clear that Section 7 of the Act confers the Rule making power on the State Government to make Rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act. Obviously, the intention behind the enactment was to prevent conversion or attempt at conversion, by use of force, by inducement or by any fraudulent means. It is to carry out this avowed object of the Act that Rules have been framed and Rules 3 to 7 are merely intended to ensure that the conversions prohibited by the Act do not take place. The insertion of sub-rule (2) to Rule 5 by the notification dated 26-11-1999 is also merely to ensure that the conversion or attempted conversion is not one prevented by the Act or sought to be curbed by the Act. The provisions for a local enquiry and for ascertaining whether there is any objection from any quarter, are also intended only to ensure that a conversion is out of the free will by the convertee and that no force, inducement or fraud has been practised on the convertee. The provision for a declaration to be made before a conversion that he intends to convert a person to his religion, is intended only to ensure that the conversion is not one hit by the Act. We do not see any infirmity in the Rules. Nor can it be said that the Rules are beyond the Rule making power conferred by Section 7 of the Act. ( 6 ) HERE again, we are of the view that the petitioners who want to convert cannot have any objection to the procedure prescribed to ensure that the conversion is a free and fair one. Nor can it be said that the Rules are beyond the Rule making power conferred by Section 7 of the Act. ( 6 ) HERE again, we are of the view that the petitioners who want to convert cannot have any objection to the procedure prescribed to ensure that the conversion is a free and fair one. They are not persons who want to convert themselves and who find the prescription in the Rules irksome, impractical or arbitrary. They are merely persons who do not want to follow the steps prescribed by the Rules before converting another person into their religion. We are inclined to hold that at their instance there is no occasion for finding the Rules invalid. ( 7 ) THUS, we find no reason to entertain this writ petition. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.