Law banning Conversion of Religion is against Individual Freedom : Babbles Former Judge S Muralidhar

New Delhi – S Muralidhar, a former Judge, who ordered the release of the Urban Naxal Gautam Navlakha from house arrest, is now talking about a law against conversion of religion. During a panel discussion on anti-conversion laws in the country, he claimed that the law enacted to prevent deceitful and forceful conversion is against individual freedom. S Muralidhar said :

1. These kind of laws are focused on taking away the individual freedom of people rather than being against the forceful conversion of religion.

2. 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. (This is natural and logical; but if we expect a former Judge [who is an ‘intellectual’] to realise this, we will be left only with disappointment. – Editor)

3. This basic presumption explains why the law shifts the burden of proof onto the person who is charged with converting another against the person’s will.

4. These laws are against Dalits and minorities. Dalits seeking to embrace Buddhism would have to explain to a District Magistrate why they were making that choice. First, they would have to announce to the whole world that they were exercising their choice to embrace a particular religion. (This amounts to babbling ! – Editor)

5. Ideally, a person who has been a victim of a forced conversion should have the right to file a complaint. However, these laws permitted anyone, any cousin or relative, to file a complaint. (This is so very ridiculous ! If a person is lured and converted, obviously the converted person will not be able to say anything about it; but only his relatives can voice their opposition if such a crime has been committed under this law. It needs to be noted that the Judge is thus trying to protect people who are luring others for conversion of religion. – Editor)

6. This gave the vigilante groups the freedom to go around looking at notice boards, Collector’s offices or Registrar offices to find who has put up a notice that they want to have an inter-faith marriage. They would have ready information and subject the person to intimidation.

Editorial Perspectives

S Muralidhar doesn’t seem to feel anything about protecting people who are forcefully converted; instead, he argues on behalf of those who convert people, which exhibits his mentality. Therefore, we need to find out if due to this mentality he had passed any judgement against Hindus when he functioned as a Judge.

It is likely that in the name of individual freedom, in future such Judges may appeal for the release of criminals arrested for raping, murder, etc.