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?a)Since the Ordinance is only about restrictions on the forced conversions for marriage, the “right to marry” per se still stands, but only with a procedural framework.b)Such restrictions are divisive and are bound to shake the very spirit of the Constitution.c)Article 13 of the Constitution cannot be invoked against the UDHR Convention which is the part of the international law regime.d)The Special Marriage Act, that is in place, sufficiently deals with the issue of inter-faith marriage. In such case, it is wholly unwarranted to bring a new Ordinance.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. 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?

a)
Since the Ordinance is only about restrictions on the forced conversions for marriage, the “right to marry” per se still stands, but only with a procedural framework.
b)
Such restrictions are divisive and are bound to shake the very spirit of the Constitution.
c)
Article 13 of the Constitution cannot be invoked against the UDHR Convention which is the part of the international law regime.
d)
The Special Marriage Act, that is in place, sufficiently deals with the issue of inter-faith marriage. In such case, it is wholly unwarranted to bring a new Ordinance.

Correct answer is option 'A'. 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...

The argument in the question talks about the right to marry as a human right. So, the answer must relate to that, and that too countering it. In that case, only options (a) and (d) deal with the right to marry, and out of them, only option (a) counters the argument of the author.

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

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following statements cannot be deduced from the passage above, according to the passage?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following is not the appropriate cause-and-effect relationship in the passages context?

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. 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?a)Since the Ordinance is only about restrictions on the forced conversions for marriage, the “right to marry” per se still stands, but only with a procedural framework.b)Such restrictions are divisive and are bound to shake the very spirit of the Constitution.c)Article 13 of the Constitution cannot be invoked against the UDHR Convention which is the part of the international law regime.d)The Special Marriage Act, that is in place, sufficiently deals with the issue of inter-faith marriage. In such case, it is wholly unwarranted to bring a new Ordinance.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. 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?a)Since the Ordinance is only about restrictions on the forced conversions for marriage, the “right to marry” per se still stands, but only with a procedural framework.b)Such restrictions are divisive and are bound to shake the very spirit of the Constitution.c)Article 13 of the Constitution cannot be invoked against the UDHR Convention which is the part of the international law regime.d)The Special Marriage Act, that is in place, sufficiently deals with the issue of inter-faith marriage. In such case, it is wholly unwarranted to bring a new Ordinance.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. 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?a)Since the Ordinance is only about restrictions on the forced conversions for marriage, the “right to marry” per se still stands, but only with a procedural framework.b)Such restrictions are divisive and are bound to shake the very spirit of the Constitution.c)Article 13 of the Constitution cannot be invoked against the UDHR Convention which is the part of the international law regime.d)The Special Marriage Act, that is in place, sufficiently deals with the issue of inter-faith marriage. In such case, it is wholly unwarranted to bring a new Ordinance.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. 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?a)Since the Ordinance is only about restrictions on the forced conversions for marriage, the “right to marry” per se still stands, but only with a procedural framework.b)Such restrictions are divisive and are bound to shake the very spirit of the Constitution.c)Article 13 of the Constitution cannot be invoked against the UDHR Convention which is the part of the international law regime.d)The Special Marriage Act, that is in place, sufficiently deals with the issue of inter-faith marriage. In such case, it is wholly unwarranted to bring a new Ordinance.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. 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?a)Since the Ordinance is only about restrictions on the forced conversions for marriage, the “right to marry” per se still stands, but only with a procedural framework.b)Such restrictions are divisive and are bound to shake the very spirit of the Constitution.c)Article 13 of the Constitution cannot be invoked against the UDHR Convention which is the part of the international law regime.d)The Special Marriage Act, that is in place, sufficiently deals with the issue of inter-faith marriage. In such case, it is wholly unwarranted to bring a new Ordinance.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. 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?a)Since the Ordinance is only about restrictions on the forced conversions for marriage, the “right to marry” per se still stands, but only with a procedural framework.b)Such restrictions are divisive and are bound to shake the very spirit of the Constitution.c)Article 13 of the Constitution cannot be invoked against the UDHR Convention which is the part of the international law regime.d)The Special Marriage Act, that is in place, sufficiently deals with the issue of inter-faith marriage. In such case, it is wholly unwarranted to bring a new Ordinance.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. 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?a)Since the Ordinance is only about restrictions on the forced conversions for marriage, the “right to marry” per se still stands, but only with a procedural framework.b)Such restrictions are divisive and are bound to shake the very spirit of the Constitution.c)Article 13 of the Constitution cannot be invoked against the UDHR Convention which is the part of the international law regime.d)The Special Marriage Act, that is in place, sufficiently deals with the issue of inter-faith marriage. In such case, it is wholly unwarranted to bring a new Ordinance.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. 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?a)Since the Ordinance is only about restrictions on the forced conversions for marriage, the “right to marry” per se still stands, but only with a procedural framework.b)Such restrictions are divisive and are bound to shake the very spirit of the Constitution.c)Article 13 of the Constitution cannot be invoked against the UDHR Convention which is the part of the international law regime.d)The Special Marriage Act, that is in place, sufficiently deals with the issue of inter-faith marriage. In such case, it is wholly unwarranted to bring a new Ordinance.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. 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?a)Since the Ordinance is only about restrictions on the forced conversions for marriage, the “right to marry” per se still stands, but only with a procedural framework.b)Such restrictions are divisive and are bound to shake the very spirit of the Constitution.c)Article 13 of the Constitution cannot be invoked against the UDHR Convention which is the part of the international law regime.d)The Special Marriage Act, that is in place, sufficiently deals with the issue of inter-faith marriage. In such case, it is wholly unwarranted to bring a new Ordinance.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. 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?a)Since the Ordinance is only about restrictions on the forced conversions for marriage, the “right to marry” per se still stands, but only with a procedural framework.b)Such restrictions are divisive and are bound to shake the very spirit of the Constitution.c)Article 13 of the Constitution cannot be invoked against the UDHR Convention which is the part of the international law regime.d)The Special Marriage Act, that is in place, sufficiently deals with the issue of inter-faith marriage. In such case, it is wholly unwarranted to bring a new Ordinance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam