In Uttarakhand, judiciary protects citizens from executive overreach

Context & The Gist

The article discusses the ineffectiveness of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act (UFRA), commonly known as an “anti-conversion” law, in achieving its stated purpose. It gained prominence after an investigation revealed that of the 62 cases registered under the law in the last seven years, a vast majority have either been acquitted, dismissed, or granted bail, indicating a lack of evidence and potential misuse. This highlights a significant intervention by the judiciary to protect citizens from what is perceived as executive overreach and the criminalization of consensual relationships.

Essentially, the article points to a disconnect between the intention of the law – to prevent forced conversions – and its actual implementation, where the courts are consistently finding insufficient evidence to support the accusations.

Key Arguments & Nuances

• Low Conviction Rate: Only five out of 51 cases with available court records have completed trials, and all resulted in acquittals. This demonstrates a systemic failure in proving the allegations made under the UFRA.
• Lack of Evidentiary Standards: Court records reveal frequent failures to meet evidentiary standards, suggesting that cases are being pursued without sufficient proof of forced conversion.
• Criminalization of Consensual Relationships: The law has been used to criminalize consensual relationships, particularly interfaith relationships, raising concerns about the infringement of personal liberty.
• Procedural Lapses: Investigations and prosecutions under the UFRA have been marred by procedural lapses, further weakening the cases.
• Judicial Intervention: The judiciary, including trial courts, the Uttarakhand High Court, and the Supreme Court, has played a crucial role in protecting citizens' rights by granting bail and acquitting accused individuals.
• Constitutional Mandate: Courts have reaffirmed the constitutional right to freedom of religion (Article 25) and personal liberty (Article 21), emphasizing that individuals are free to profess, practice, and propagate their religion without infringing on the rights of others.

UPSC Syllabus Relevance

• Indian Constitution: Fundamental Rights (Articles 21, 25), Directive Principles of State Policy.
• Polity: Legislative processes, judicial review, Centre-State relations.
• Governance: Issues related to law enforcement, human rights, and social justice.

Prelims Data Bank

• Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty – No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
• Article 25: Freedom of Religion – All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
• Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act (UFRA): Passed in 2018, and amended in 2023, it aims to regulate religious conversions and prevent forced conversions.
• Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006): Supreme Court judgment affirming the right of adults to marry according to their choice.

Mains Critical Analysis

The Uttarakhand UFRA exemplifies a broader trend of enacting laws that ostensibly protect vulnerable groups but, in practice, lead to the harassment and criminalization of individuals exercising their fundamental rights. A PESTLE analysis reveals the following:

• Political: The law is driven by a specific political ideology and aims to appease certain sections of society.
• Economic: The law has minimal direct economic impact but can create a climate of fear and distrust, potentially affecting social harmony and tourism.
• Social: The law exacerbates social tensions between different religious communities and infringes upon personal liberties.
• Technological: Social media plays a role in amplifying accusations and spreading misinformation related to conversions.
• Legal: The law is prone to judicial scrutiny due to its potential violation of fundamental rights.
• Environmental: Not directly relevant.

The core issue is the misuse of state power to control personal choices and religious beliefs. The implications are far-reaching, potentially eroding the secular fabric of the nation and undermining the principles of liberty and equality. A critical gap lies in the lack of robust mechanisms to prevent the misuse of the law and ensure accountability of law enforcement agencies.

Value Addition

• Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018): The Supreme Court struck down the Kerala High Court’s annulment of Hadiya’s marriage, reaffirming the right of adults to choose their partners.
• Allahabad High Court (Dec 20, 2025): Reaffirmed the right to live-in relationships and provided police protection to consenting adults.
• National Commission for Minorities (NCM): Has expressed concerns about the misuse of anti-conversion laws and the increasing incidents of violence against Christians.

Context & Linkages

This article highlights a pattern of intimidation and harassment targeting the Christian minority, particularly around religious festivals. It demonstrates how anti-conversion narratives are used to justify violence and create a climate of fear, mirroring the concerns raised in the current article regarding the UFRA. Both articles point to the vulnerability of religious minorities and the need for stronger protections against state-sponsored or state-tolerated discrimination.

The Allahabad High Court’s judgment affirming the right to personal liberty and protecting live-in relationships resonates with the concerns raised about the UFRA. Both cases involve state intrusion into personal choices and the criminalization of consensual relationships. The court’s emphasis on individual autonomy and the right to choose one’s partner directly challenges the restrictive nature of laws like the UFRA.

The Way Forward

• Review and Amend the UFRA: The Uttarakhand government should review the law to address the concerns raised by the judiciary and civil society organizations, ensuring it does not infringe upon fundamental rights.
• Strengthen Evidentiary Standards: Law enforcement agencies should be directed to gather robust evidence before registering cases under the UFRA, avoiding frivolous accusations.
• Promote Awareness and Sensitization: Public awareness campaigns should be launched to promote religious tolerance and respect for individual choices.
• Ensure Accountability: Mechanisms should be established to hold law enforcement agencies accountable for any misuse of the law.
• Judicial Oversight: Continued judicial scrutiny of cases registered under the UFRA is essential to protect citizens' rights.