Uttarakhand Governor returns Bill to amend anti-conversion law

The decision by the Uttarakhand Governor to return a Bill proposing amendments to the state's anti-conversion law is a significant event, illuminating crucial aspects of India's constitutional framework, particularly the role of the Governor and the delicate balance between religious freedom and state legislative powers. This action is not merely a procedural step but a reflection of the deep constitutional and societal debates surrounding religious conversions in India.

To understand this, we must first delve into the background of anti-conversion laws. India, a secular nation, guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion under Article 25 of its Constitution. However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to public order, morality, and health. Over the decades, several Indian states have enacted 'Freedom of Religion' Acts, commonly known as anti-conversion laws, to prevent conversions through 'force, fraud, or inducement.' The first such laws emerged in the 1960s, with Odisha enacting the Odisha Freedom of Religion Act in 1967 and Madhya Pradesh following suit in 1968. Uttarakhand, too, has its own law, the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, which was further amended in 2022 to make forced conversions a cognizable and non-bailable offense, significantly increasing the penalties and even including provisions for imprisonment up to 10 years and fines for conversions for the sole purpose of marriage.

The recent development involves the Governor of Uttarakhand returning a Bill that sought to introduce further amendments to this existing anti-conversion law. While the specific details of the proposed amendments are not publicly detailed in the prompt, the act of returning the Bill itself is a critical constitutional function. The Governor, as the constitutional head of the state, exercises powers under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution. This Article grants the Governor several options when a Bill passed by the State Legislature is presented for assent: they can give assent, withhold assent, return the Bill for reconsideration (with or without amendments), or reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President of India. The Governor's decision to return the Bill signifies that they believe certain aspects require further deliberation by the State Legislative Assembly, perhaps concerning its constitutionality, implications, or specific provisions.

Key stakeholders in this process include the Governor, who acts as a crucial check on the legislative process; the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly, which passed the Bill and now must reconsider it; and the State Government (executive), which likely initiated these amendments. Beyond these governmental bodies, various religious groups, civil society organizations, and citizens are profoundly affected. Those advocating for stricter anti-conversion laws often cite concerns about 'love jihad' or mass conversions, while proponents of religious freedom express worries about potential misuse of such laws to harass minorities or impede genuine conversions based on individual conscience, thereby infringing upon Article 25.

This incident holds significant implications for India. Politically, it highlights the Governor's often-debated role, sometimes perceived as an agent of the Centre, especially when Bills passed by state assemblies are returned or reserved. Socially, it reignites the discourse on religious freedom versus the state's power to regulate religious practices. Constitutionally, it underscores the intricate workings of federalism, where states have legislative competence on subjects like 'public order' and 'morality' (Entry 1 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule), but their laws are still subject to constitutional scrutiny and the Governor's assent process. The Supreme Court, in cases like *Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh* (1977), has upheld the constitutionality of anti-conversion laws, clarifying that Article 25 grants the right to 'propagate' one's religion but not the right to convert another person by force or fraud.

Looking ahead, the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly now has a few options. It can reconsider the Bill, incorporating the Governor's suggestions (if any were provided), or pass it again without any changes. If the Assembly passes the Bill again, the Governor is generally expected to give assent. However, the Governor also retains the power under Article 200 to reserve the Bill for the President's consideration, particularly if they believe it infringes upon fundamental rights, is ultra vires the state's powers, or derogates from the powers of the High Court. Such a move would shift the decision-making to the Union government, involving Article 201. This ongoing legislative back-and-forth reflects the dynamic nature of India's constitutional governance and the continuous effort to balance diverse societal interests with fundamental constitutional principles.