The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires religious conversion to be scrutinised and certified by the State. Conversion to a different faith without the state’s approval would lead to imprisonment and fines. While on the face of it, it seems that this ordinance is enacted to ensure that conversions aren’t carried out by undue influence, force, misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud – however, the State has been conferred unfettered power to surveil and question conversions stemming from inter-faith marriage. This unconstrained power has been devised by radical Hindu political leaders who propagate the conspiracy of “Love Jihad.”However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.Q. As per the Supreme Court ruling, which of the following is one of the necessary essential for marrying?a)Consent of Familyb)Consent of adults marryingc)Same Religion of people marryingd)Approval of SocietyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion ...

Join the Discussion on the App

However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.

This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.

Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.

Q. As per the Supreme Court ruling, which of the following is one of the necessary essential for marrying?

a)
Consent of Family
b)
Consent of adults marrying
c)
Same Religion of people marrying
d)
Approval of Society

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CLAT Practice Test - 12

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 20...

Apex Court ruling is that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires religious conversion to be scrutinised and certified by the State. Conversion to a different faith without the state’s approval would lead to imprisonment and fines. While on the face of it, it seems that this ordinance is enacted to ensure that conversions aren’t carried out by undue influence, force, misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud – however, the State has been conferred unfettered power to surveil and question conversions stemming from inter-faith marriage. This unconstrained power has been devised by radical Hindu political leaders who propagate the conspiracy of “Love Jihad.”However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.Q. The author argues that the ordinance is in contravention with the international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right. Which of the following could be the possible counter argument to that?

View answer

The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires religious conversion to be scrutinised and certified by the State. Conversion to a different faith without the state’s approval would lead to imprisonment and fines. While on the face of it, it seems that this ordinance is enacted to ensure that conversions aren’t carried out by undue influence, force, misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud – however, the State has been conferred unfettered power to surveil and question conversions stemming from inter-faith marriage. This unconstrained power has been devised by radical Hindu political leaders who propagate the conspiracy of “Love Jihad.”However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.Q. As per the passage, which of the following petition would not fit in the pigeon hole of right to privacy?

View answer

The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires religious conversion to be scrutinised and certified by the State. Conversion to a different faith without the state’s approval would lead to imprisonment and fines. While on the face of it, it seems that this ordinance is enacted to ensure that conversions aren’t carried out by undue influence, force, misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud – however, the State has been conferred unfettered power to surveil and question conversions stemming from inter-faith marriage. This unconstrained power has been devised by radical Hindu political leaders who propagate the conspiracy of “Love Jihad.”However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.Q. Which of the following is the author most concerned about?

View answer

The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires religious conversion to be scrutinised and certified by the State. Conversion to a different faith without the state’s approval would lead to imprisonment and fines. While on the face of it, it seems that this ordinance is enacted to ensure that conversions aren’t carried out by undue influence, force, misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud – however, the State has been conferred unfettered power to surveil and question conversions stemming from inter-faith marriage. This unconstrained power has been devised by radical Hindu political leaders who propagate the conspiracy of “Love Jihad.”However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.Q. Which of the following would be the most likely reaction of the author in the following scenario? X is an influential landlord in a village in U.P., and he is forcing 2 adult girls of his village to convert from their respective religions and marry X’s sons, who are of the age of majority.

View answer

Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.A murder case is fit for the death penalty where the crime is committed with a depraved motive, or where it is of a socially abhorrent nature. But what motive can be more depraved, and what crime can be of a more socially abhorrent nature, than a murder committed with the intent to punish the exercise by the victim of a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution?To be sure, every murder involves an interference with the fundamental right to live, but under the "rarest of rare" doctrine not every murder deserves the death penalty.Death penalty rather should apply for murders interfering with something more than the mere right to live - to murders motivated by a depraved desire to interfere with "fundamental" constitutional rights.The one who murders another for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the strictest of punishment. After all, if constitutional rights are to have any meaning, they must not merely dictate the manner in which the State interacts with its citizens, but must also colour the standards that will be applied to interactions amongst private citizens. The law will not tolerate the motive of stifling "fundamental" constitutional rights contained in part III of the Constitution.To use a religious analogy, if the lengthy Constitution were the epic Mahabharata, the fundamental rights chapter would be its Bhagwad Gita. For the sacrosanct position fundamental rights occupy in Indian jurisprudence, it is perhaps justifiable in a system which permits the death penalty, to claim that a murderer who seeks to punish his victim for exercising a fundamental constitutional right deserves the death penalty. There is a chance of commuting death sentence. Commuting death sentences to life on account of the "death row phenomenon"-Prisoners who are under the spectre of the death sentence for an unduly long period of time after the final confirmation of the sentence, are entitled to have the death sentence commuted to life, on account of the dehumanising psycho logical effect of the prolonged wait.However, in essence, there can be no "hard and fast" rule with respect to commuting death sentences to life imprisonment on account of the delay. In such cases, it is also imperative for the Court to examine the root cause of the delay, in order to ensure that the delay was not caused by the accused himself. After all, reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment because of delays caused on account of frivolous proceedings filed by the accused himself would "defeat" death penalty law in India, reducing it to an "object of ridicule".Q.Extending the previous question with the following alternative facts: The murder of the family had taken place in 2002. The trial court sentenced the accused to death in September 2003; a sentence which was confirmed by the High Court in May 2005. The question is before the Supreme Court in the year 2014, 12 years since the trial court sentence. The delay was caused by the investigation agency as the first report that it had submitted was held to be unreliable and therefore they were asked to conduct a fresh investigation. In the context of the passage above, can the accused, if convicted, plead the commuting of the death sentence?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires religious conversion to be scrutinised and certified by the State. Conversion to a different faith without the state’s approval would lead to imprisonment and fines. While on the face of it, it seems that this ordinance is enacted to ensure that conversions aren’t carried out by undue influence, force, misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud – however, the State has been conferred unfettered power to surveil and question conversions stemming from inter-faith marriage. This unconstrained power has been devised by radical Hindu political leaders who propagate the conspiracy of “Love Jihad.”However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.Q. As per the Supreme Court ruling, which of the following is one of the necessary essential for marrying?a)Consent of Familyb)Consent of adults marryingc)Same Religion of people marryingd)Approval of SocietyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires religious conversion to be scrutinised and certified by the State. Conversion to a different faith without the state’s approval would lead to imprisonment and fines. While on the face of it, it seems that this ordinance is enacted to ensure that conversions aren’t carried out by undue influence, force, misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud – however, the State has been conferred unfettered power to surveil and question conversions stemming from inter-faith marriage. This unconstrained power has been devised by radical Hindu political leaders who propagate the conspiracy of “Love Jihad.”However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.Q. As per the Supreme Court ruling, which of the following is one of the necessary essential for marrying?a)Consent of Familyb)Consent of adults marryingc)Same Religion of people marryingd)Approval of SocietyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires religious conversion to be scrutinised and certified by the State. Conversion to a different faith without the state’s approval would lead to imprisonment and fines. While on the face of it, it seems that this ordinance is enacted to ensure that conversions aren’t carried out by undue influence, force, misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud – however, the State has been conferred unfettered power to surveil and question conversions stemming from inter-faith marriage. This unconstrained power has been devised by radical Hindu political leaders who propagate the conspiracy of “Love Jihad.”However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.Q. As per the Supreme Court ruling, which of the following is one of the necessary essential for marrying?a)Consent of Familyb)Consent of adults marryingc)Same Religion of people marryingd)Approval of SocietyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires religious conversion to be scrutinised and certified by the State. Conversion to a different faith without the state’s approval would lead to imprisonment and fines. While on the face of it, it seems that this ordinance is enacted to ensure that conversions aren’t carried out by undue influence, force, misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud – however, the State has been conferred unfettered power to surveil and question conversions stemming from inter-faith marriage. This unconstrained power has been devised by radical Hindu political leaders who propagate the conspiracy of “Love Jihad.”However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.Q. As per the Supreme Court ruling, which of the following is one of the necessary essential for marrying?a)Consent of Familyb)Consent of adults marryingc)Same Religion of people marryingd)Approval of SocietyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires religious conversion to be scrutinised and certified by the State. Conversion to a different faith without the state’s approval would lead to imprisonment and fines. While on the face of it, it seems that this ordinance is enacted to ensure that conversions aren’t carried out by undue influence, force, misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud – however, the State has been conferred unfettered power to surveil and question conversions stemming from inter-faith marriage. This unconstrained power has been devised by radical Hindu political leaders who propagate the conspiracy of “Love Jihad.”However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.Q. As per the Supreme Court ruling, which of the following is one of the necessary essential for marrying?a)Consent of Familyb)Consent of adults marryingc)Same Religion of people marryingd)Approval of SocietyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires religious conversion to be scrutinised and certified by the State. Conversion to a different faith without the state’s approval would lead to imprisonment and fines. While on the face of it, it seems that this ordinance is enacted to ensure that conversions aren’t carried out by undue influence, force, misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud – however, the State has been conferred unfettered power to surveil and question conversions stemming from inter-faith marriage. This unconstrained power has been devised by radical Hindu political leaders who propagate the conspiracy of “Love Jihad.”However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.Q. As per the Supreme Court ruling, which of the following is one of the necessary essential for marrying?a)Consent of Familyb)Consent of adults marryingc)Same Religion of people marryingd)Approval of SocietyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires religious conversion to be scrutinised and certified by the State. Conversion to a different faith without the state’s approval would lead to imprisonment and fines. While on the face of it, it seems that this ordinance is enacted to ensure that conversions aren’t carried out by undue influence, force, misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud – however, the State has been conferred unfettered power to surveil and question conversions stemming from inter-faith marriage. This unconstrained power has been devised by radical Hindu political leaders who propagate the conspiracy of “Love Jihad.”However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.Q. As per the Supreme Court ruling, which of the following is one of the necessary essential for marrying?a)Consent of Familyb)Consent of adults marryingc)Same Religion of people marryingd)Approval of SocietyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires religious conversion to be scrutinised and certified by the State. Conversion to a different faith without the state’s approval would lead to imprisonment and fines. While on the face of it, it seems that this ordinance is enacted to ensure that conversions aren’t carried out by undue influence, force, misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud – however, the State has been conferred unfettered power to surveil and question conversions stemming from inter-faith marriage. This unconstrained power has been devised by radical Hindu political leaders who propagate the conspiracy of “Love Jihad.”However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.Q. As per the Supreme Court ruling, which of the following is one of the necessary essential for marrying?a)Consent of Familyb)Consent of adults marryingc)Same Religion of people marryingd)Approval of SocietyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires religious conversion to be scrutinised and certified by the State. Conversion to a different faith without the state’s approval would lead to imprisonment and fines. While on the face of it, it seems that this ordinance is enacted to ensure that conversions aren’t carried out by undue influence, force, misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud – however, the State has been conferred unfettered power to surveil and question conversions stemming from inter-faith marriage. This unconstrained power has been devised by radical Hindu political leaders who propagate the conspiracy of “Love Jihad.”However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.Q. As per the Supreme Court ruling, which of the following is one of the necessary essential for marrying?a)Consent of Familyb)Consent of adults marryingc)Same Religion of people marryingd)Approval of SocietyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires religious conversion to be scrutinised and certified by the State. Conversion to a different faith without the state’s approval would lead to imprisonment and fines. While on the face of it, it seems that this ordinance is enacted to ensure that conversions aren’t carried out by undue influence, force, misrepresentation, coercion, or fraud – however, the State has been conferred unfettered power to surveil and question conversions stemming from inter-faith marriage. This unconstrained power has been devised by radical Hindu political leaders who propagate the conspiracy of “Love Jihad.”However, this theory is contrary to investigative reports by multiple governmental agencies. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the religious conversion of one person by another through any means, including by marriage. To successfully convert by marriage, an individual must notify the state 60 days prior to his/her intention to convert, along with a notice issued by the priest. This is patently unconstitutional and violates the right to religion and other rights stemming from the right to life, along with international conventions such as UDHR ratified by India, which upholds the right to marry as a human right.This ordinance is antithetical to the Supreme Court’s judgement in Shefin Jahan’s case where it was held that: “absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.” Policing powers bestowed upon the state of UP to monitor individuals’ choice of partners or their religion violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity. While recognising the diversity and plurality of our culture, privacy ensures an individual’s ability to have control over vital aspects of their lives like marriage, the sanctity of family life and preservation of personal intimacies. Interfaith marriages in India aren’t wholly accepted and are stigmatised, couples face backlash and are often ostracised from their communities.Therefore, couples could prefer religious conversion over getting married under the Special Marriage Act, which is an Act under which individuals from different faiths can marry whilst retaining their religious beliefs. Individuals must give 30 days’ notice under the said Act before their nuptials, which opens them to harassment from the community at large and their families. Section 4 of the Ordinance will subject them to even more scrutiny and harassment by giving powers to relatives by blood and marriage to object to their union by lodging a police complaint. This completely violates the Apex Court’s ruling that consent of the family or community is not necessary when entering into wedlock by two consenting adults. To vilify a community and discriminate against them in the garb of neutrality is against the very spirit of the Constitution, which holds secularism as part of its basic structure that cannot be altered.Q. As per the Supreme Court ruling, which of the following is one of the necessary essential for marrying?a)Consent of Familyb)Consent of adults marryingc)Same Religion of people marryingd)Approval of SocietyCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam