Activist John Dayal Seeks To Intervene In Religious Conversion PIL; Alleges Petitioner Has Made Inflammatory Statements Against Minorities

The application filed through Advocate on Record Anas Tanwir alleged that the Additional Application for Directions to Central government which was filed by the Petitioner carries derogatory and inflammatory statements against the Christian and Muslim community. The IA states that the statements made in the Writ Petition affect the communal harmony and secular fabric of the country.

The IA further states that, "It is apposite to submit here that the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic, have secured and guaranteed all its citizen, irrespective of caste, creed and colour, certain fundamental rights embodied in the Constitution. In this backdrop the Indian Christian community is at liberty to preach, practice and propagate its religious views by exhibiting and transforming its Christian faith into actions as they are enjoined upon these rights which flow to them through Articles 19, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India."

Countering the argument that Christians and Muslims engage in increasing their population through forceful conversion, the IA argues, "The Christian community of India has over the many years contributed dedicatedly towards nation building. The community has sought to live out the Biblical mandate to love thy neighbors as thy self and served the marginalized and the poor. The term "forceful conversion" is misleading and cannot be termed as conversion at all.

It further states that, "religion is a personal affair, and no third party or outsider can ever have any influence on a relationship that man enjoys with his cosmos."

The IA also argues that the aforementioned Writ Petition in the form of a PIL engages in forum shopping and has been pursued with a political motive. Countering the argument that Christians and Muslims engage in increasing their population through forceful conversion, the IA argues, states that, "Since the present Writ Petition is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the antecedents and the prior conduct of the litigant is also of utmost importance. The Petitioner claims to be a member of a political party and has on previous occasions approached this Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with the self same reliefs claimed in the present petition…That the Petitioner in the present Petition has tactfully suppressed details of other petitions that he filed before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (W.P.(C)2786/2020 and W.P(C) 9442/2022) seeking similar reliefs on issue of conversion of religion. In both the aforementioned cases he withdrew his petition on failure to show any evidence of religious conversion, to avoid costs. Thus such acts by the Petitioner amount to forum shopping."

The IA then goes on to give details of the two cases pursued by the Petitioner earlier which were withdrawn by him. It states, "The Petitioner had approached the Hon'ble Court vide WP(C) 393/2021 wherein a three judge bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice RF Nariman (as His Lordship then was) sternly objected to the petition and remarked that it was nothing but a Publicity interest litigation which was of a harmful kind. The bench also warned the Petitioner that heavy costs will be imposed if the matter was pressed. Following that, the Petitioner withdrew the petition."

It is further submitted in the IA that the "Petitioner does not have clean antecedents and is known for creating animosity between various religious groups. He is a political leader who has on many occasions filed frivolous PILs for his oblique propaganda and politics, wasting precious judicial time…Earlier this year, on 08.08.2022, the Petitioner was arrested by the Delhi police along with 5 others for organizing an event where several anti-Muslim slogans were raised.

A bench led by Justice MR Shah is considering the matter. The bench has observed that forced conversion is a serious issue and has refused to accept objections raised against the maintainability of the PIL.