The Gujarat government recently clarified that Buddhism and Hinduism must be considered as two separate religions for religious conversions in the state. On April 8, the Gujarat government took note of Hindus – predominantly Dalits – converting to Buddhism in the state, and stated that both the person converting and the person getting them to convert must inform the District Magistrate and get their permission, according to the provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003 (GFR Act).
Ramesh Banker, secretary of the Gujarat Buddhist Academy, previously told The Indian Express that at least 2,000 people converted to Buddhism in Gujarat in the year 2023 alone.
How does the GFR Act govern religious conversions in Gujarat?
According to the state government, the GFR Act “seeks to deal with religious conversion through allurement, force or by misrepresentation or by any other fraudulent means.”
Section 3 of the act criminalises an attempt to convert any person from one religion to another “by use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage or by getting a person married or by aiding a person to get married”. Section 3A, inserted through an amendment in 2021, allows “any aggrieved person” or a person related to them to lodge an FIR for offences committed under the GFR Act.
Anyone who violates Section 3 can be punished with up to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to Rs 50,000. If the victim is a woman, minor or a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, this punishment is increased to up to four years imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh.
For valid conversion to take place, Section 5 provides that a person performing the conversion ceremony or who “takes part directly or indirectly in such ceremony” must receive prior permission from the District Magistrate, and the person who is converted must inform the District Magistrate following the ceremony. Failing to do so will invite a punishment of up to one year or a fine of up to Rs 1,000.
The GFR Act was amended in 2021 to criminalise conversion through marriage under Section 3 and introduced the punishment for conversion through marriage (Section 4A), a law declaring marriages void if conversion takes place before or after said marriage (Section 4B), and a punishment for every person who is a part of an institution or organisation that participates in unlawful conversions (Section 4C). The amendment also places the burden on the accused to prove that the conversion did not take place through unlawful means (Section 6A).
Why did the Gujarat government issue the circular?
The circular issued by the Home Department on April 8 states that the “procedure as per rules (GFR Act) are not being followed” when it comes to applications to District Magistrates for conversion from Hinduism to Buddhism, according to a report by The Indian Express. The circular states that “concerned offices are disposing such applications while stating that under Article 25(2) of the Constitution, Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism are included within Hinduism and so the applicant is not required to take permission for (such) religious conversion”.
This is a reference to the explanation provided in Article 25 which guarantees freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion. Under Article 25(2)(b), laws can be enacted to provide social welfare or reform to “all classes and sections of Hindus”. The explanation for this section states that the reference to Hindus will include persons “professing the Sikh, Jains or Buddhist religion”.
Interestingly, the 2006 amendment to the GFR Act – which was later withdrawn in 2008 after it did not receive assent from the Governor – would have inserted an explanation stating that for the purpose of the GFR Act “Jain and Buddhist shall be construed as denominations of Hindu religion”. On the flip side, the April 2024 circular clarifies that “with reference to Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, Buddhism will have to be considered a separate religion”.
Is the GFR Act facing a legal challenge?
In July 2021, the Jamiat Ulama-E-Hind challenged the Gujarat Freedom Of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021 and requested a stay on the provisions regarding conversion through marriage. It argued that the new provisions operate on the presumption that an interfaith marriage is taking place for the purposes of conversion when in actuality marriage has no bearing on conversion.
The Bench comprising former Chief Justice Vikram Nath (who is now a Supreme Court Judge) and Justice Biren Vaishnav granted a limited stay on most of the provisions of the GFR Act in August 2021, stating that the provisions “shall not operate merely because a marriage is solemnised by a person of one religion with a person of another religion…such marriages cannot be termed as marriages for the purposes of unlawful conversion”.
However, the court did not bar the operation of the GFR Act in cases that do not concern interfaith marriages, stating “The above interim order is provided only…to protect the parties solemnising marriage inter-faith from being unnecessarily harassed”. The larger challenge to the 2021 amendment is still pending before the Gujarat High Court.
This limited stay was challenged before the Supreme Court the following September. The case has been tagged with the larger challenge to the constitutionality of anti-conversion laws in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh that was filed by the organisation Citizens for Justice and Peace. The apex court is currently considering whether to transfer the various pending challenges to anti-conversion laws across the country to itself so that they can be clubbed together and heard at the same time.
