Tanisha Rana
Published on: September 10, 2022 at 17:54 IST
In a recent case [Rahul vs. State of MP], the Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered the police to look into an Arya Samaj trust in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, for forcibly converting a Muslim lady to Hinduism and then arranging her marriage to a man without receiving permission from the law.
The Arya Samaj Vivah Trust is seen to be violating the law by converting people to their religion, according to a division bench of Justices Rohit Arya and Milind Ramesh Phadke.
“The abortive act of conversion by such self-styled Vivah Mandirs involves people from Hindu and Muslim community and may cause serious law and order problem, therefore, this Court may invoke suo motu jurisdiction and issue notice to the said Vivah Mandir,” the order stated.
It further stated that the trust’s unscrupulous efforts to convert individuals from one faith to another without legal sanction were harmful to the social fabric and public order and may lead to widespread discontent, community strife, and violent behaviour.
Calling for a police probe into the trust’s operations, the Bench ordered, “Conversion of a Muslim girl to Hindu religion, found to be illegal and vulnerable in public domain, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad is directed to get an investigation done for verification of existence/constitution and members of the respondent no.6/Vivah Mandir Trust”
“…if any, of the alleged activities and thereafter suitable corrective measures be taken as per law and, if need be, also forward the enquiry report to the competent Authority under the relevant Trust Act to initiate action against the so called Trust.”
Additionally, it instructed the police to investigate the trust’s operations/operational technique, books of accounts, and documents.
The Bench further noted that the aforementioned acts of the Vivah Trust amounted to operating marriage businesses for profit. The courts believed that this posed a major threat to the sanctity of marriages recognised by personal laws, notably the Hindu Marriage Act.
The court was considering a habeas corpus petition submitted by a man named Rahul in 2021, asking for the release of his wife, Hina, who was being held against her will by police in a women’s shelter home in Gwalior.
The petitioner stated that his wife (a Muslim) converted to Hinduism specifically so that they may wed after fleeing their respective homes. He turned in a marriage licence and a certificate of conversion from the Arya Samaj Vivah Mandir in Ghaziabad, both dated September 17, 2019.
However, the Bench emphasised during the proceedings the necessity to determine the legality of such marriages. Thus, it was recognised that the marriage certificate and the conversion certificate lacked legal standing and were therefore invalid.
“Considering these factors and the sensitivity of the issue involved, this Court is constrained to exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution, to checkmate such situation and its recurrence in future at the hands of respondent no.6 (Trust),” the Court said.
The Court further determined that the trust’s issue of a conversion certificate constituted a flagrant breach of Section 5 of the 1968 Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam.
It was highlighted that the trust did not have the authority to solemnise marriages or issue marriage certificates, merely to arrange weddings in accordance with Hindu rituals and customs.
The Court noted that the woman had the right to decide whether or not to be released because she was a major.
“The Additional District Magistrate is directed to arrange for an in-camera video-graphed meeting of the corpus with her parents within one week from today and, thereafter, despite meeting if corpus, who is major, still is not inclined to go with her parents, she shall be set free forthwith to go as per her wishes,” the Court ordered.
Advocate Suresh Agrawal represented the petitioner, and the State was represented by Additional Advocate General MPS Raghuvanshi and Deputy Advocate General Rajesh Shukla.
The trust was represented by attorneys Balwant Singh Billowria and Prabhat Kumar Singh, while the court was helped by Amicus Curiae attorney Faisal Ali Shah.