Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court on Thursday searching for responses from the State Government of the Challenges to the ‘Anti-Love Jihad’ Law that was recently applied, with the question that if someone married, he must first go to prison and then satisfy the court .
That marriage and repentance between religions are not forcibly or view.
Chief Justice of Judiciary Vikram Nath and Justice Biren Vaishnav places a question to the state government after the petition complains that the anti-conversion law, in the form of amendments to the Law of religious freedom, places the burden of evidence in that person who manages the conversion to prove that conversion is not Without coercion, fraud or view.
Applicants, Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and Conventor of the Minority Mujahid Nafees Coordination Committee, have challenged the provisions added to the anti-conversion law.
They argue that the law makes illegal marriage institutions and further criminalize, while marriage is legal and most basic fundamental rights guaranteed to everyone.
They demanded the elimination of part 3 that amended, who prescribed “conversion with marriage” as canceled and gave a punishment for it.
The Petitioner argues that by including “a better lifestyle” and “Divine blessing and displeasure” in the definition of view, the law makes all religious propagation criminals.
This oppose Article 25 of the Constitution.
It has also been commemorated that this law will lead to disproportional consequences by terrorizing interfaith partners and acting as a deterrent, because everyone who is harmed has the freedom to submit complaints.
“It can cause the abuse of the grave by the state and by the preferred non-state actors.
In addition, by the terms and objects, active actions, change the eyes of specific and targeted suspicions and Muslims, which are recipes for suspicion, division and even Hatred in Indian society, “petition reading.
Further petitions say that in the context of the discourse around the love of Jihad, it is clear that the law “applied to communal goals and thus opposed constitutional morality, and basic features and fundamental rights guaranteed below article 14, 19, 21, 25, and 26 from the constitution “.
The Petitioner’s advocate argues that this law aims to criminalize marriage with unclear terms such as divine blessings and a better lifestyle, which is not a material object.
The state government asked the court to give time to prepare defense against challenges.
The court has posted further hearing on August 17.