Plea in SC challenges Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh’s ‘love jihad’ laws

The petitioners contended that the Parliament has no power to amend the fundamental rights, and if this ordinance is implemented, it will harm public at a large and will create a chaotic situation in the society

New Delhi: A plea has been moved in the Supreme Court challenging the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Of Religion Ordinance, 2020 and the Uttarakhand Freedom Of Religion Act, 2018.

The plea moved by advocates Vishal Thakre and Abhay Singh Yadav and law researcher Pranvesh, states that the UP ordinance disturbs the basic structure of the Constitution. “The most important issue was whether the Parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution,” said the plea.

The petitioners contended that the Parliament has no power to amend the fundamental rights, and if this ordinance is implemented, it will harm public at a large and will create a chaotic situation in the society.

“It is also pertinent to mention herein that the ordinance is passed by the state government/s of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand is against the provisions of Special Marriage Act, 1954 and it will create fear in the society who is/ are not part of Love Jihad… they can be falsely implicated in the ordinance,” the plea said.

Citing the landmark Kesavananda Bharti case, the plea said “the court held that the Parliament can amend the Constitution but the Parliament cannot change the basic structure of the Constitution”.

The petitioners contended they are aggrieved by the ordinances passed by the state governments and prayed before the top court that the law passed by Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand should be declared ultra vires and null and void, as they “disturb the basic structure of the Constitution and also are against the public policy and society at large”.

“This ordinance can become a potent tool in the hands of bad elements of the society to use this ordinance to falsely implicate anyone,” it argued, adding that there are probabilities of “falsely implicating persons who are not involved in any such acts and it will be a grave injustice if this ordinance is passed”.

–IANS

Related posts