Law banning conversion of religion is against individual freedom : Claims former judge S Muralidhar

He had ordered release of urban naxalite Gautam Navlakha from house arrest

S Muralidhar, a former judge (left), who ordered the release of the urban naxalite Gautam Navlakha (right)

New Delhi – S Muralidhar, a former judge, who ordered the release of the urban naxalite Gautam Navlakha from house arrest, is now talking about law against conversion of religion. He claimed that the law enacted to prevent deceitful and forceful conversions is against individual freedom during a panel discussion on anti-conversion laws in the country.

Former judge S Muralidhar stated –

Such kind of laws are more against taking away individual freedom of people rather than against forceful conversion of religion.

There is a presumption in all these laws that if a person belonging or born into a certain religion decides to embrace another religion, then such a decision must be due to some kind of intimidation (It is natural and logical; but if we expect a former judge who is a thinker, to realise this; we will be left only with sheer disappointment. – Editor) This basic presumption explains why the law shifts the burden of proof onto the person who’s charged with converting another against the person’s will.

These laws are against ‘Dalit’ and minorities. Now a Dalit who wants to embrace Buddhism, will have to explain to the District Magistrate reasons for his doing so. He will have to tell the whole world first. (Futile babbling by a former judge. – Editor)

Earlier, only the aggrieved person had a right to lodge a complaint; but now, this law allows anyone to file a complaint; e.g. relatives or distant cousins, etc. of the aggrieved person (So ridiculous ! If a person is lured and converted, then the converted person will not say anything about it; but only his relatives can bring forth if such a crime has been committed under this law. It needs to be noted that the judge is thus trying to protect people luring others for conversion of religion. – Editor)

It has resulted in the rise in activities of some hooligans who read the notice boards in the office of a district collector and threaten others interested in conversions or inter-religion marriages.

Editorial Perspectives

Muralidhar doesn’t seem to feel anything for protection of people who are forcefully converted; but he argues on behalf of those who convert people which exhibits his mentality. It therefore, needs to be found out whether due to such mentality of Muralidhar, he had passed any verdict against Hindus during his work span as a judge.