Muslim Woman Converts To Hinduism & Marry Hindu Man- Uttarakhand HC Asks DM, ‘Why Conversion Application Hasn’t Been Processed?’, Grants Protection

first_imgNews UpdatesMuslim Woman Converts To Hinduism & Marry Hindu Man- Uttarakhand HC Asks DM, ‘Why Conversion Application Hasn’t Been Processed?’, Grants Protection Sparsh Upadhyay25 Dec 2020 5:05 AMShare This – xThe Uttarakhand High Court on Wednesday (23rd December) directed the District Magistrate, Haridwar to inquire from the appropriate authorities and persons as to why application of petitioner no.1 (Anjali @ Afsana) for conversion has not been processed and if processed when. The Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ravindra Maithani gave this order in a protection plea filed…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Uttarakhand High Court on Wednesday (23rd December) directed the District Magistrate, Haridwar to inquire from the appropriate authorities and persons as to why application of petitioner no.1 (Anjali @ Afsana) for conversion has not been processed and if processed when. The Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ravindra Maithani gave this order in a protection plea filed by an interfaith couple apprehending that the brothers of Anjali @ Afsana may physically harm them. Both the petitioners asserted before the Court that they belong to different faiths and after petitioner no. 1 converted to the faith of petitioner no.2 i.e. Hindu, the two married on 16.12.2020. They also submitted before the Court that moved an application before the concerned District Magistrate, but no decision has been taken on it. [NOTE: As per Section 8(1) of Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, one who desires to convert his religion, shall give a declaration at least one month in advance, in the prescribed proforma, to the District Magistrate or the Executive Magistrate specially authorized by District Magistrate that he wishes to convert his religion on his own and at his free consent and without any force, coercion, undue influence or allurement.] Court’s order This Court interacted with them and observed, “They seem to be articulate and they both have apprised this Court that they have a threat perception at the hands of the private respondent nos.3 and 4.” Giving the aforesaid direction to the DM, Haridwar, the Court, as an interim measure, directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar to coordinate with the subordinate officers of Police and give suitable directions to the concerned SHO, to provide necessary protection to the petitioners “as there is a threat perception at the hands of respondent nos. 3 & 4.” The Court has also issued notice to respondent nos.3 & 4 (brothers of the girl). Three weeks’ time has been granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit. Matter has been posted for further hearing on 05th March 2021. In related news, the Uttarakhand High Court recently directed the District Magistrate, Dehradun to conduct a detail inquiry about non-compliance of Section 8(2) of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 which mandate Religious Priests to give prior intimation to the concerned District Magistrate, before performing conversion of a person from one religion to another. A Division Bench comprising Justices Alok Kumar Verma and Sudhanshu Dhulia directed thus while granting police protection to inter-religious couples in two cases. In one case, a Hindu girl had converted to Islam and in the other case, a Muslim girl had converted to Hinduism. The Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act was enacted in the year 2018 with the stated objective “to provide freedom of religion by prohibition of conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage and for the matters incidental thereto”. Related Court’s Orders In the celebrated Judgment of Shakti Vahini v. UOI & others, the Supreme Court of India in the year 2018 held that “when two adults marry out of their volition, they choose their path; they consummate their relationship; they feel that it is their goal and they have the right to do so.” The Calcutta High on Monday (21st December) made it clear that if an adult marries as per her choice and decides to convert and not return to her paternal house, there could be no interference in the matter. Further, in November 2020, the Karnataka High Court held that the right of any major individual to marry the person of his/her choice is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India. In a controversial ruling, which was later on declared as bad in law, the Allahabad High Court had, on 23rd September 2020, dismissed a writ petition seeking police protection filed by a married couple. This was after the Court had noted that the girl was a Muslim by birth and she had converted her religion to Hinduism, just a month before the marriage was solemnized. Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi had referred to a 2014 judgment in Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., in which it was observed that conversion just for the purpose of marriage is unacceptable. Overruling this Judgment and declaring it bad in law, the Allahabad High Court has, on 11th November, specifically observed that “Right to live with a person of his/her choice irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty.” Importantly, the Bench of Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek Agarwal remarked, “We fail to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even the state can have an objection to the relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together.” “We hold the judgments in Noor Jahan and Priyanshi as not laying good law,” the Court further ruled. Uttar Pradesh Government Brings in Anti-Conversion Law 17 days after the Allahabad High Court gave its path-breaking Judgment related to one’s freedom to choose his/her life partner, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, Anandiben Patel promulgated the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020.Case title – Smt. Anjali @ Afsana & another v. State of Uttarakhand & others [Writ Petition (Criminal) No.2168 of 2020]Click Here To Download OrderRead OrderSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Lawyer Moves Supreme Court For Expeditious Filling Of Vacancies At PMLA Appellate Tribunal

first_imgTop StoriesLawyer Moves Supreme Court For Expeditious Filling Of Vacancies At PMLA Appellate Tribunal Akshita Saxena23 Jan 2021 12:45 AMShare This – xA Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions for expeditiously filling the long-standing vacancies at the Appellate Tribunal, Prevention of Money Laundering Act (ATPMLA). The petition has been filed by Advocate-Activist Amit Sahni, through Advocate Preeti Singh, stating that the ATPMLA, which deals with sensitive and crucial matters pertaining…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginA Public Interest Litigation has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions for expeditiously filling the long-standing vacancies at the Appellate Tribunal, Prevention of Money Laundering Act (ATPMLA). The petition has been filed by Advocate-Activist Amit Sahni, through Advocate Preeti Singh, stating that the ATPMLA, which deals with sensitive and crucial matters pertaining to PMLA, NDPS Act, FEMA, SAFEMA, etc., is struggling to dispense justice, particularly in absence of its Chairman and three members out of sanctioned strength of four, and acute shortage of administrative staff. It is submitted that one Member-post at the Tribunal fell vacant in 2018, and the tenure of the Chairman and two members expired in 2019 and since then, the ATPMLA has been constrained to function with its sole member. So far as administrative staff is concerned, the plea points out: 2 Registrar posts are vacant since 2016 and 20202 Sr. Private Secretary posts are vacant since 20083 Private Secretary posts are vacant since 20163 Steno posts are vacant since 20161 Superintendent post is vacant since 20161 Assistant post is vacant since 2016Court Master’s post is vacant since 2016UDC vacancies are unfilled since 2019LDC vacancies are unfilled since 2019 totaling to 23 vacant posts as on date. “The very object for constituting Tribunals is to supplement the functions of the High Courts and the other Courts and to ensure that the consumer of justice gets speedy redressal to his grievances. Due to a large number of unfilled vacancies hampering the progress of the functioning of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is imminent need for expediting the process of selections and appointments to ensure speedy justice,” the petition thus states.Reliance is placed on Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr., where the Supreme Court directed the Central Government to constitute a National Tribunal Commission for the appointment of members in various Tribunals.The petition further avers that Sahni had filed several RTI Applications, seeking information regarding vacancies at the Tribunal, which revealed that apart from post of Chairman, three out of four members are not appointed. Further, there are certain vacancies since 2016 and few posts are vacant since 2008. He also made a representation to the Government for expeditious filling of vacancies at Tribunal but no step has been taken by the government upon the same till date. “The ATPMLA has been crying for attention since long but the Government has failed to take adequate and appropriate steps,” Sahni said. [Note: The ATPMLA consists of a Chairman (a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court) and Four Members (who can be from the fields of Law, Finance and Management)] Next Storylast_img read more