The Supreme Court on Monday refused to vacate a stay by the August 19 Gujarat High Court on the implementation of certain provisions related to interfaith couples in the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act.
Claiming that it had no political agenda behind the legislation, the Gujarat Government challenged the high court stay order and its refusal to issue a rectification order in the apex court.
The apex court, however, refused to interfere with the high court order and issued notices to the State Government, returnable on April 1.
On August 27, 2021, the high court had ruled that it did not find any merit in the Gujarat Government’s application to give a revised order.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Biren Vaishnav had stayed the operation of Section 5 of the law that appeared to interfere in interfaith marriages without force or allurement.
State Advocate-General Kamal Trivedi had submitted that Section 5 had little to do with marriages but about the need for district magistrate’s permission to any individual wishing to convert to another religion without force and allurement. With this August 19 stay order, even this provision would not be operational.
To this, the high court had pointed out that the stay order was not entirely on Section 5 but on its invocation in the cases of marriage without force or allurement.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mihir Joshi had argued that if Section 5 of the Act was not included in the stay order, then the Court's entire order won't operate and thereby, the Order of the Court becomes unworkable.
He also argued that if somebody wants to get married (inter-religious), the presumption is that it is unlawful unless permission is taken under Section 5. Since the Court has stayed Section 5 only in relation to marriage solemnized between consenting adults, the provision will not be deemed to be stayed for individual conversions, he added.
Explaining the order in a layman’s language, the Chief Justice had said, “Supposing X is a bachelor, he wants to convert, he would require permission under Section 5 of the Act, we have not stayed that. Only permission for marriage has been stayed. Read what we said, we said the rigors of Section 3, 4, 4A to 4C, 5, 6, and 6A shall not operate merely because marriage is solemnized by a person of one religion with another religion without force or allurement or fraudulent means and such marriages cannot be termed as marriages for the purposes of unlawful conversion.”
