The Supreme Court has filed a petition opposing the procedural validity of the Madhya Pradesh Religious freedom Ordinance, passed by the Madhya Pradesh Government.
The petition submitted by Aldanish Rein, Advocate-On-Record, states that the ordinance passed by the Governor bypassing the Assembly’s legislative procedure is not only unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, but also corrupt of the Constitution itself.
He further states that in breaching the freedom to marry, freedom to profess, exercise and spread any religion, and the right to privacy, the impugned Ordinance has guillotined the personal autonomy of persons, equality under the law, personal freedom and freedom of choice and speech, in blatant and flagrant infringement of individuals’ fundamental rights as guaranteed and guaranteed.
He points out that the challenged ordinance adapted its basic form from the constitutional Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unauthorized Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 and the Uttarakhand Religious freedom Act, 2018 under challenge in supreme court.
It is unfortunate that the political and culture gimmick of ‘Love Jihad,’ which was formerly limited exclusively to the ‘Us versus Them’ myth backed by bogus propaganda machines (e.g., ‘WhatsApp University,’ shady social media sites, etc.), political protests and social fringes, has appeared as a rule.
A classic example of a gross violation of the powers granted by Article 213 of the Constitution is the disputed ordinance promulgated by the respondents. In order to undermine the constitutional procedure of the Assembly, the conduct taken by the respondents in promulgating ordinances is not only unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution but is also a fraud of the Constitution itself.
The complainant argues that there is no data available on ‘love jihad’ from any government institution or department and that it was not a good case for issuing an order. The order was given in haste and in utter disdain for the effect it could have on the human rights of the parties concerned.
The petitioner has cited numerous case laws highlighting the apparently unconstitutional conditions set out in the order.
