‘Individual’s Autonomy Supreme In Choices Of Faith And Belief’
NEW DELHI: Anti-conversion laws framed by various states, validity of which are being examined by Supreme Court, will have to pass privacy test as the court in a recent verdict linked right to freedom of religion with right to privacy “in the sense of non-interference from State”.While quashing multiple FIRs filed under Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra had noted right to privacy & right to freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion – under Article 25 the Constitution – are interlinked and had to be examined.Referring to a nine-judge SC bench’s verdict on right to privacy, it said this court underlined that Article 25 encapsulates within it the ability to choose a faith and the subsequent freedom to express or not to express such a choice.”In other words, Article 25 carries with it the facets of privacy rights, whereby a person has the intrinsic right to freedom of conscience and also the choice to express it to the world at large. This court highlighted that although Part III of the Constitution does not have a separate article declaring privacy as a fundamental right, yet the broader scheme of Part III portrays and contains in it the various aspects of privacy, Article 25 being one of them,” it said. The court categorically noted that “freedom of conscience as ensured under Article 25 falls within the zone of purely private thought process”. It was also emphasised that privacy is a condition precedent for the rights under Article 25 to come into being. “This court also read privacy rights in other rights pertaining to religious belief under Articles 26 and 28, respectively,” the bench said.It also drew a similarity on how choosing one’s partner is a legitimate constitutional right in which consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adults agree to enter into wedlock.Referring to another SC verdict, the bench said, “It held that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution as an expression of one’s right to life. It categorically held that the intimacies of marriage, including the choices which individuals make on whether to marry, or whom to marry, form one of the rights from a bouquet of rights of right to privacy, and most importantly, transcend the control of the State.””The court, while observing that the Constitution guarantees the right to practice, profess and propagate religion, held that an individual’s autonomy is supreme in choices of faith and belief which are intrinsic in matters of marriage. The court prohibited the State as well as the law from controlling the choice of choosing a partner or even limiting or regulating the ability to decide on such matters,” it said.
