On January 2, the Supreme Court reprimanded a petitioner for attempting to “sensationalise” the observations made by the Bareilly District Court. The district court, while convicting Mohammed Alim in a Love Jihad case, had drawn parallels with rampant illegal religious conversions in Pakistan and Bangladesh. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by one Anas, seeking to expunge these remarks, arguing that they were prejudicial to the Muslim community.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti dismissed the PIL as unpressed, emphasising that the petitioner lacked jurisdiction and was unnecessarily sensationalising the issue. Advocate Manas P. Hameed, representing Anas, conceded during the hearing that the petitioner was not a party to the original proceedings in the Uttar Pradesh court. This admission prompted Justice Roy to remark, “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.”
Echoing a similar sentiment, Justice Bhatti questioned the propriety of expunging remarks in independent litigation: “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. Sensationalising matter in this fashion is not correct.”
The bench categorically clarified that judicial observations, based on evidence, cannot be expunged via an Article 32 petition. Article 32 of the Constitution allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. Anas contended that the Bareilly Court’s observations in the Love Jihad case infringed upon his fundamental rights as a Muslim.
However, the Supreme Court dismissed his claim, highlighting his lack of locus standi and rejecting the argument that observations founded on evidence could infringe on fundamental rights.
The Bareilly Court’s Judgment in Focus
The PIL was filed in response to the Bareilly District Court’s judgment dated September 30, 2024, which convicted Mohammed Alim in a Love Jihad case. Alim was found guilty of deceiving a Hindu woman by posing as a Hindu man named “Anand.” He coerced her into a relationship under false pretences, subjected her to violence, and pressured her to convert to Islam. The court convicted him under Sections 376(2)(n) (rape), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.
In its judgment, the Bareilly Court categorically described the case as an example of Love Jihad, stating, “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 warned that unchecked incidents of this nature could lead to a situation akin to Pakistan and Bangladesh, where forced religious conversions are prevalent. “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 noted.
Criticism of Legal Oversight
The judgment also pointedly criticised the failure to invoke the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021, in Alim’s case. “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 observed.
Additionally, the court expressed concerns about potential foreign funding behind such activities. “The systematic targeting of vulnerable women for religious conversion through deceit may not be an isolated phenomenon. 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,” it noted.
A Broader Threat to Secularism
The Bareilly Court’s observations highlighted the broader implications of such cases, asserting that these incidents represent more than individual wrongdoings. “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,” the court said. It underscored the need to address these trends to preserve the secular and harmonious fabric of Indian society.
Supreme Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of Anas’ PIL reaffirms the judiciary’s stance that observations made by lower courts based on evidence cannot be expunged arbitrarily. The apex court’s ruling underscores the principle that frivolous petitions, lacking jurisdiction or substance, will not be entertained.
Comments