Interfaith Marriages and the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021

This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.

Introduction

Interfaith marriages in Uttar Pradesh operate within a multi-layered legal framework. The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (UP Act No. 3 of 2021) introduced a regulatory regime governing religious conversions, with specific provisions affecting marriages between persons of different faiths. This article examines the key provisions of the 2021 Act, its intersection with the Special Marriage Act, 1954, relevant constitutional principles, and significant court rulings that have shaped the legal landscape for interfaith couples in the state.

Key Provisions of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021

What Constitutes “Unlawful Conversion”

Section 3 of the Act prohibits conversion from one religion to another by means of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or any fraudulent means. It also prohibits conversion by marriage, or abetment, conspiracy, or convincing any person to undergo such conversion.

The Act defines “allurement” broadly under Section 2 to include any gift, gratification, easy money, or material benefit (whether in cash or kind), employment, free education in a reputed school run by any religious body, a better lifestyle, divine pleasure, or otherwise. This expansive definition has attracted attention from legal commentators for its breadth.

Marriage and Conversion — Section 6

Section 6 specifically addresses conversions undertaken for the purpose of marriage. If a court finds that a conversion was carried out solely for the purpose of marriage, the marriage may be declared null and void. This provision applies regardless of whether the conversion was performed before or after the marriage ceremony.

FIR Provisions — Section 4

Under the original 2021 Act, an FIR regarding alleged unlawful conversion could be lodged by the aggrieved person, or by their parents, siblings, or any person related by blood, marriage, or adoption. This defined a relatively specific class of complainants. However, the 2024 Amendment Bill expanded the scope of who may lodge a complaint, a change that has drawn scrutiny from courts and commentators.

Pre-Conversion Procedure — Section 8

Section 8 establishes a mandatory pre-conversion declaration process. Any person wishing to convert to another religion must give a declaration to the District Magistrate at least 60 days before the proposed conversion. Additionally, the religious convertor (the person facilitating the conversion) must send a one-month advance notice to the District Magistrate.

Upon receiving these declarations, the District Magistrate is required to direct a police inquiry into the intention, purpose, and cause of the proposed conversion. After conversion, the converted person must submit a further declaration to the District Magistrate within 60 days under Section 9, providing personal details including their name, parents’ names, address, occupation, and the name of the religious priest who conducted the ceremony. These details are then publicly displayed at the office of the District Magistrate.

Non-compliance with the pre-conversion procedure attracts separate penalties: imprisonment between six months and three years with a minimum fine of Rs. 10,000 for the person undergoing conversion, and imprisonment between one and five years with a minimum fine of Rs. 25,000 for the convertor.

Penalties Under the Act

The Act prescribes graded penalties:

General violations (Section 5(1)): Imprisonment of not less than 1 year, extendable up to 5 years, with a fine of not less than Rs. 15,000.
Conversion of minors, women, SC/ST persons (Section 5(2)): Imprisonment of not less than 3 years, extendable up to 10 years, with a fine of not less than Rs. 25,000.
Mass conversion (Section 5(3)): Rigorous imprisonment of not less than 7 years, extendable up to 14 years, with a fine of not less than Rs. 1 lakh.
Foreign funding for unlawful conversion: Rigorous imprisonment of not less than 7 years, extendable up to 14 years, with a fine of not less than Rs. 10 lakh.

All offences under the Act are cognizable and non-bailable, triable by the Court of Sessions.

Burden of Proof — Section 12

Section 12 places the burden of proving that a conversion was lawful on the person who caused the conversion. This reverses the ordinary criminal law principle where the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt. In practice, this means that if a conversion is alleged to be unlawful, the accused must demonstrate that it was carried out without misrepresentation, force, coercion, allurement, or fraud.

The 2024 Amendment

In July 2024, the Uttar Pradesh Assembly passed the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2024, which significantly enhanced the penalties under the original Act. Key changes include:

Enhanced maximum imprisonment of up to 20 years for conversion through marriage, promises of marriage, conspiracy, or trafficking with the intent to convert.
Introduction of life imprisonment as the maximum penalty for fraudulent or forced conversions, up from the earlier maximum of 10 years.
Increased penalties for conversion involving minors, women, disabled persons, or SC/ST persons — up to 14 years imprisonment with a minimum fine of Rs. 1 lakh.
Expanded scope of who may file a complaint, removing the earlier restriction to family members and related persons.
Stricter bail conditions under Section 7, requiring the public prosecutor to be given an opportunity to contest any bail application before bail is granted.

The Special Marriage Act, 1954 — An Alternative Route

The Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) provides a civil marriage framework that allows two persons of different religions to marry without either party converting. However, it carries its own procedural requirements.

Notice Requirement — Sections 5 to 8

Under Section 5, the intending parties must give written notice to the Marriage Officer of the district where at least one party has resided for a minimum of 30 days. Section 6 requires the Marriage Officer to publish this notice in the Marriage Notice Book, which is open to public inspection, and display it conspicuously in the office. After publication, a 30-day waiting period follows.

Section 7 allows any person to raise an objection to the proposed marriage within 30 days of publication, on the ground that it contravenes the conditions in Section 4. Under Section 8, the Marriage Officer must inquire into any objection received and must decide within 30 days of the objection whether it should prevent the solemnization.

Practical Implications of the SMA Notice Requirement

The 30-day public notice under the SMA, while designed to ensure transparency, has been a point of concern for interfaith couples. The public display of personal details — including names, addresses, and religions of both parties — can expose couples to potential harassment or opposition from family members or community groups. This has led to calls for reform, and some High Courts have addressed whether the notice requirement can be waived in specific circumstances.

Intersection Between the Two Laws

Interfaith couples in UP face a complex legal landscape. If one partner converts to the other’s religion to marry under personal law, the conversion procedure under the 2021 Act must be followed, including the 60-day prior notice to the District Magistrate. If the couple opts to marry under the Special Marriage Act without conversion, the 30-day public notice requirement applies. In either path, there is a mandatory waiting period and a degree of public disclosure.

The 2021 Act adds a further layer: even if a couple marries under the SMA without conversion, any subsequent conversion by one spouse could potentially attract scrutiny under the Act, depending on the circumstances.

Constitutional Issues

The 2021 Act raises several constitutional questions that are being examined at various judicial levels.

Article 21 — Right to Life and Personal Liberty

The right to choose a life partner has been recognised by Indian courts as falling within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution. Any law that imposes conditions on this choice is subject to the test of reasonableness and proportionality.

Article 25 — Freedom of Conscience and Religion

Article 25 guarantees to all persons the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. The mandatory notice, police inquiry, and public disclosure requirements of the 2021 Act raise questions about the extent of permissible state regulation of religious conversion.

Supreme Court Scrutiny

The Supreme Court has taken up consolidated petitions challenging the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws enacted by multiple states, including Uttar Pradesh. The Court has observed that the Act introduces “a very onerous procedure to be followed by an individual seeking to adopt a faith other than the one he professes” and noted that “the involvement and interference of the State authorities in the conversion procedure is also conspicuous.” The bench also flagged that the mandate to publicly display personal details of converted persons “may require a deeper examination to ascertain if such a requirement fits well with the privacy regime pervading the constitution.” As of the date of publication, the constitutional challenge remains pending.

Key Court Rulings

Salamat Ansari v. State of UP (2020)

In this landmark decision delivered on 11 November 2020, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the right to live with a person of one’s choice, irrespective of religion, is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The court observed: “We do not see Priyanka Kharwar and Salamat as Hindu and Muslim, rather as two grown up individuals who out of their own free will and choice are living together peacefully and happily over a year.” The bench overruled the earlier decision in Noor Jahan and affirmed that every adult has a fundamental right to choose their partner. This judgment was delivered before the 2021 Act came into force.

Nadeem v. State of UP (2021)

In one of the early cases under the newly enacted ordinance, the Allahabad High Court stayed the arrest of Nadeem, who had been booked under the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020. The Division Bench of Justices Pankaj Naqvi and Vivek Agarwal observed that the adults involved had a fundamental right to privacy, that the allegations were “prima facie based on suspicion,” and directed that no coercive action be taken. The UP government subsequently informed the court that there was no evidence of forced conversion in the case.

Practical Implications for Interfaith Couples in UP

Understanding the procedural requirements is essential for interfaith couples in Uttar Pradesh:

If converting for marriage under personal law: The person converting must file a 60-day advance declaration with the District Magistrate under Section 8 of the 2021 Act. The convertor must also give a one-month advance notice. A police inquiry will follow. After conversion, a post-conversion declaration must be filed within 60 days under Section 9. Only after this process is complete can the marriage proceed under the applicable personal law.
If marrying under the Special Marriage Act without conversion: The couple must give 30 days’ notice to the Marriage Officer under Section 5 of the SMA, with the notice published publicly. The marriage can be solemnized after the 30-day period, provided no sustained objections arise.
Documentation: In either route, maintaining complete documentation — notices, declarations, acknowledgments from authorities, and the marriage certificate — is important for legal certainty.
Legal nature of offences: All offences under the 2021 Act are cognizable and non-bailable, meaning an FIR can be registered without a warrant and obtaining bail requires a court application.

Disclaimer: This article has been prepared for general educational and informational purposes. It is based on the law as understood at the time of writing and does not constitute legal advice, an advertisement, or solicitation. Laws, rules, and their interpretation may change. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional before acting on any information contained herein. No advocate-client relationship is created by reading this article.