Factual Matrix 

A PIL case against religious conversion in the state of Tamil Nadu was submitted by BJP politician and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. Lavanya, a young girl, committed suicide in Tamil Nadu, and it was claimed that the Christian school where she was enrolled had coerced her into the conversion. With the purpose of dividing society through hatred and stoking religious intolerance in the nation, Ashwini Upadhyay’s petition accuses a certain religion of forcefully converting people to Christianity.

Argument Advanced

According to the defendant, Article 25 of the Constitution grants everyone the freedom to spread and practise his or her religion to others so long as doing so does not impair the public order guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The Tamil Nadu government further claims that exploitation and injustice only occur when people are forced to convert to religion through coercion, lies, threats, gifts, black magic, or superstition. As a result, it is neither illegal nor unconstitutional for missionaries to preach Christianity on their own. The Tamil Nadu government said that because India is a secular country, every citizen has the freedom to practise any religion they choose.

The defence claims that there is no information on convictions under the various anti-conversion statutes of the States and that anti-conversion laws are frequently abused against minorities. His frivolous applications were filed in the name of the public good, but the petitioner is a member of the BJP, which is in power. Thus, he is attempting to mask a barely disguised attempt to advance a particular agenda by using the tool of PIL. The petitioner has also entered this Court with clean hands because he is facing a criminal charge under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code for abusing court time and advancing a religious agenda.

In its affidavit, the State questioned the petition’s viability on the grounds that the petitioner, a BJP member, was abusing particular religions and exploiting the court to obtain rulings that supported his political agenda. The State argued that the charges made by the petitioner are baseless and made up and that no such events have been reported in recent memory.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, Since there are so many different religions practised in India, every citizen is guaranteed the freedom to practice the religion of their choice, according to the constitution. Every citizen has the right to peacefully practice and disseminate their faith, in accordance with this fundamental freedom. Article 21 of the Constitution establishes the right to adhere to a particular religion as an unalienable right.