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. 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.a)Right to Marry is recognised as an absolute right in the Shefin Jahan’s case.b)Stopping such marriage would violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity of the concerned parties.c)Both (A) and (B).d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. 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.a)Right to Marry is recognised as an absolute right in the Shefin Jahan’s case.b)Stopping such marriage would violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity of the concerned parties.c)Both (A) and (B).d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. 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.a)Right to Marry is recognised as an absolute right in the Shefin Jahan’s case.b)Stopping such marriage would violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity of the concerned parties.c)Both (A) and (B).d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. 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.a)Right to Marry is recognised as an absolute right in the Shefin Jahan’s case.b)Stopping such marriage would violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity of the concerned parties.c)Both (A) and (B).d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. 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.a)Right to Marry is recognised as an absolute right in the Shefin Jahan’s case.b)Stopping such marriage would violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity of the concerned parties.c)Both (A) and (B).d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. 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.a)Right to Marry is recognised as an absolute right in the Shefin Jahan’s case.b)Stopping such marriage would violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity of the concerned parties.c)Both (A) and (B).d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. 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.a)Right to Marry is recognised as an absolute right in the Shefin Jahan’s case.b)Stopping such marriage would violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity of the concerned parties.c)Both (A) and (B).d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. 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.a)Right to Marry is recognised as an absolute right in the Shefin Jahan’s case.b)Stopping such marriage would violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity of the concerned parties.c)Both (A) and (B).d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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. 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.a)Right to Marry is recognised as an absolute right in the Shefin Jahan’s case.b)Stopping such marriage would violate the right to privacy, autonomy, personal liberty and the right to live with dignity of the concerned parties.c)Both (A) and (B).d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.