The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws enacted in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate C.U. Singh argued that provisions in the Uttar Pradesh law impose a minimum sentence of 20 years, twin conditions for bail, and a reverse burden of proof, making bail “virtually impossible” in interfaith marriages. He highlighted that the 2024 amendments allow third parties to file complaints, leading to harassment during church observances and interfaith weddings. Singh sought permission to amend the pending petitions to challenge these new provisions.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising urged that the interim stay on the Madhya Pradesh law be continued, while Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover sought similar relief against laws in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana.
Counsel for the states opposed the plea, questioning the delay in seeking a stay. One counsel even pressed for a ban on “deceitful conversions,” prompting CJI D.Y. Chandrachud to ask, “Who will find whether it is a deceitful conversion?”
The Bench granted the states four weeks to file replies, with petitioners permitted to file rejoinders within two weeks thereafter. The matter will now be heard after six weeks.