Freedom of Religion is a Fundamental Right enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution of India and reads as follows: “All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion subject to public order, morality and health.”
While in the words of renowned American Historian Mark Twain in his book titled: Following the Equator (1897) -
“Reverence for one’s own sacred things”parents, religion, flag, laws, and respect for one’s own beliefs”these are feelings which we cannot even help. They come natural to us...But the reverence which is difficult...is the respect you pay, without compulsion, to the political and religious attitude of a man whose belief are not yours. You can’t revere his God or his politics, and no one expects you to do that, but you could respect his belief in them if you tried hard enough.”
In the words of Seema Sharma, Jai Hind College, University of Mumbai in her Journal Article which was published in The Mark Twain Annual, Vol. 15, No. 1 (2017):
“Following the Equator (1897) abounds with lengthy observations on Indian religious practices and customs, and the geographical and cultural expanse of India. Twain was drawn to, and at the same time confused by, the existence of so many religions and their varying belief systems and traditions. On the one hand he showed admiration for Hindu theology, on the other he expressed criticism of regressive practices like the caste system, suttee, etc.”
Then, somewhere along the way, perhaps Secularism shall enter the narrative of Indian religious history, thus conferring the virtues of religious tolerance upon the diverse composition of Indian faiths being practiced concurrently.
However, the aspect of conversion from one religion to another represents an argument which penetrates deeper than the freedom of religion guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.
In the words of Advocate Ejaz Maqbool while representing the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind before the Supreme Court in India:
“The scrutiny by the state of a personal decision to convert is a grave assault on personal liberty of an individual and is violative of Articles 21 (right to dignity, privacy) and 25 (freedom of religion) of the Constitution.”
Therefore, does the freedom of choice of one’s religion represent an inherent right which permeates the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution?
The socially inhibitory answer would invariably have to be based on the reasoning provided in Rev. Stainislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (1977):
The two main issues raised therein were:
Whether the two anti-conversion laws enacted by the Madhya Pradesh Government were in violation of the Article 25 of the Indian Constitution?
Whether the State Legislatures were competent to enact these Acts?
The Supreme Court accordingly, held:
(1) Article 25 guarantees to all persons right to freedom and conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion subject to public order, morality and health. The word ‘propagate’ has been used in the Article means to transmit or spread from person to person or from place to place. The freedom of religion enshrined in Art. 25 is not guaranteed in respect of one religion only but covers all religions alike which can be properly enjoyed by a person if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate with the freedom of persons following another religion.
(3) If an attempt is made to raise communal passions, e.g. on the ground that someone has been forcibly converted to another religion it would in all probability give rise to an apprehension of a breach of the public order affecting the community at large.
The impugned Acts therefore fall within the purview of Entry 1 of List II of the Seventh Schedule as they are meant to avoid disturbance to the public order by prohibiting conversion from one religion to another in a manner reprehensible to the conscience of the community. The two Acts do not provide for the regulation of religion and do not fall under Entry 97 of List I.
Now, progressively under the contemporary gavel of Justice M.R. Shah, the hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Versus Samuel Daniel (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 22733/2022), Justice Shah orally remarked that “all religious conversions cannot be presumed by a State to be illegal”.
While it is evident that the State of Goa does not currently have any anti-conversion laws enacted by the State Legislative Assembly, the High Court of Bombay at Goa has assumed the role of protector of religious rights.
In May of 2023, the division bench comprising of Justice Valmiki SA Menezes and Justice MS Sonak made the following observations in their 19th May, 2023 Order:
“The right conferred upon a citizen to profess and propagate religion correspondingly casts a duty on the state and the executive to ensure that every person should be allowed to freely practice, preach or profess his/her belief.”
“The State has a duty to extend all possible protection to its citizens, through free speech and the freedom of expression, enshrined in Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India to indulge in public discourse and to propagate religious practice. All persons have a fundamental right to form institution, purchase property for their use and to profess and
propagate religion,”
It would be apt to conclude in the observations of Mark Twain (1896), so that a vision can be penned of the direction in which our society of intolerance is regressing towards:
“...a fascinating mystery. Anything more uncongenial to the Western mind and training could not be conceived. When I am told that this man will not drink out of that man’s lota, because if he does so he will be defiled”these are simply so many words to me. I can’t grasp the idea. Well, again, you say that a man with a special cord round his neck is a Brahmin, and twice born, and that because of the cord and what it implies he is to be groveled before, I ask how is it? And I can’t for the life of me imagine.”
