Allahabad High Court Berates Its Registry For Not Listing Pleas Challenging Uttar Pradesh 'Anti Love Jihad' Law As Scheduled

The Allahabad High Court today berated its registry for not listing two pleas challenging the Uttar Pradesh 'Anti-Love' Jihad [U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act] which were scheduled to be heard today.

The Court castigated the registry while hearing a plea filed by one Saurabh Kumar, challenging the law when the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice Piyush Agrawal noted that two other pleas, filed earlier on similar lines, were not listed as scheduled.

Notably, the plea by Kumar is the third plea on the issue, two other being [Aali (Association For Advocacy And Legal Initiatives) v. State of U.P.] and Shobhana Smriti v. State of U.P. All the three pleas were supposed to be listed today, however, only one plea was listed before the Court.

Consequently, the Court, in its order, noted that even though the pleas had to be listed for hearing today, but the same was not done by the registry and therefore, the Court observed thus:

Lastly, the Court listed all the three pleas as fresh for hearing on October 22 and directed that in case there is any default in carrying out the direction, it would result in action against the defaulting officer of Registry.

The plea in brief

The instant plea, which was listed for hearing today has been moved by one Saurabh Kumar, argued by Senior advocates SFA Naqvi along with Advocates Shashwat Anand and Devesh Saxena which seeks stay on the effect and operation of the impugned Act, namely, "The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

In the alternate or/and in addition, the plea seeks ad interim mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive action in pursuance of the impugned Act in cases of conversion by solemnization of marriage or relationship in the nature of marriage.

The plea avers that there are several other provisions in the Act that could plausibly be identified as unconstitutional and that the Act requires every religious conversion to be scrutinized and certified by the state.

"The very concept of forcing an individual to explain and justify a decision, which is closely personal to him/her, before an officer of the State is contrary to Constitutionalism. The Constitution imposes limitations on State power and burdens the State to explain and justify the decisions taken by it affecting the rights and lives of citizens. The Act inverses this equation," the plea states.

Case title - Saurabh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order