RCL TC 08 R

TEAM CODE TC
08 08
12TH RCL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARAT
WRIT PETITION NUMBER / 2024
FILED UNDER THE ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BHARAT
IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE
PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL CONVERSION OF RELIGION ACT, 2024
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
ALEX SHARMA (JORDAN SINGH) & ANR.
(PETITIONER)
V.
UNION OF BHARAT & ORS.
(RESPONDENT)
-MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT-
DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSELS APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...................................................................................................... 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................... 10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................ 12
1. WHETHER THE PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL CONVERSION OF RELIGION
ACT, 2024, INFRINGE ON THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF
RELIGION GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 25? .......................................................... 12
2. WHETHER THE MANDATORY INQUIRY PROCESS AS STIPULATED IN
SECTION 8 AND 9 OF THE ACT VIOLATE ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF
BHARAT?................................................................................................................................ 16
3. WHETHER THEY VIOLATE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY
PRESUMING GUILT OR THE PROVISION RELATED TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF
AND INQUIRY PROCESS UNDER THE ACT, REASONABLE AND
JUST?......................................................................................................................................19
PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 21
Page 1 of 22
MEMORANDUM IN THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S. No. ABBREVIATION EXPANSION S. No. ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
1. § Section 1. v. Versus
2. ¶ Paragraph 2. ELH Eastern Law House
3. Art. Article 3. AIR All India Reporter
4. Auth. Authority 4. Anr. Another
5. Ed. Edition 5. W.P. Writ Petition
6. Govt. Government 6. S.C. Supreme Court
7. H.C. High Court 7. UOI Union of India
8. Hon’ble Honorable 8. & And
9. ILR Indian Law 9. SCC Supreme Court
Review Cases
10. MANU Manupatra 10. p. Page
11. COB Constitution 11. SCR Supreme Court
of Bharat Reporter
12. Ors Others 12. Sec Section
Page 2 of 22
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
LIST OF CASES
ACHARAYA MAHARAJ V. STATE OF GUJARAT (1974),1975 SCC (1) 11
………………………………………………………………………………………….…….14
ANIL CHHARI V. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, 2024 SCC ONLINE CHH 2670
………………………………………………………………………………………….…….17
ANURADHA BHASIN V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2020 SC 1308
………………………………………………………………………………………….…….20
ARUN GHOSH V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, AIR 1970 SC 1228
………………………………………………………………………………………….…….13
LILY THOMAS AND ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., (2000) 6 SCC 224
………………………………………………………………………………………..………15
K.S. PUTTASWAMY V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2017 SC 4161
……………………………………………………………………………………...…….16, 17
MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA, 1978 AIR 597
………………………………………………………………………………………………..19
PUCL V. UNION OF INDIA, (1997) AIR 1997 SC 568
………………………………………………………………………………………………..18
R. RAJAGOPAL V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, (1994) 994 SCC (6) 632
………………………………………………………………………………………………..19
RAMJI LAL MODI VS THE STATE OF U.P., 1957 SCC 334
………………………………………………………………………………………………..12
REV STANISLAUS V. MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., 1977 SCC (1) 677
………………………………………………………………………………………………..15
Page 3 of 22
SARLA MUDGAL AND ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., AIR 1995 SC 1531
…………………………………………………………………………………….………….14
SHAFIN JAHAN V. K.M. ASOKAN, (2018) 16 SCC 368(2018)
…………………………………………………………………………………….………….16
CONSTITUTIONS
1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. The Constitution of Bharat, 1950
STATUTES
Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, §§ 2 Clause (a) & 12,
Act 3 of 2021
Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, § 2 Clause 1 Sub-clause (a), Act 5 of 2021
The Haryana Prevention of Unlawful, Conversion of Religion Act, § 2 Clause 1 Sub-clause (a),
Act No. 16 of 2022
BOOKS
P. M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India (19th Ed., 2021)
Tapash Gan Choudhury, Penumbra of Natural Justice (13th Ed. 2016)
Ahmad, T. & Law Library Of Congress, State Anti-conversion Laws in India, U. S. G. L. R. D.
(2018)
Page 4 of 22
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The present Petition/Appeal is filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant in the Writ Petition,
which is now pending before this Hon'ble Court.
Civil Writ Petition No. [W. P. No.] ________________________ of 2024
THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT HAS APPROACHED THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT OF BHARAT TO HEAR AND ADJUDICATE OVER THE INSTANT MATTER
UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BHARAT. THE PROVISION UNDER
WHICH THE PETITIONERS HAVE APPROACHED THE HON’BLE COURT IS READ
HEREIN AS FOLLOWS:
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.
THE PARTIES SHALL ACCEPT ANY JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT AS FINAL AND
BINDING FOR THEM AND SHALL EXECUTE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IN GOOD
FAITH.
Page 5 of 22
The Counsels on behalf of the respondent humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
court arising under the act to pass orders after due inquiry into the agreements and cartel formed
by respondents. The present memorial sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the
present case.
The laws of Bharat are pari marteria with those of India.
All of which is respectfully submitted
By: Counsels for the Respondent
Page 6 of 22
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Parliament of Bharat recently enacted the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion
Act, 2023, which came into effect on January 1, 2024. The Act aims to regulate religious
conversions and prevent conversions by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion,
or allurement.
PARTIES: Alex Sharma, a 25-year-old individual, and Taylor Singh, a 23-year-old individual,
have been in a committed relationship for three years.
FEBRUARY 1, 2024: Alex Sharma and Taylor Singh submit a declaration of intended
conversion to the district magistrate as required by Section 8 of the Act.
The planned conversion is set for April 2, 2024, following the statutory 60-day notice period.
ON OR AROUND FEBRUARY 15, 2024: During the inquiry period, Alex's parents submit
their objections to the magistrate, alleging that Taylor's family used allurement to induce Alex’s
conversion. They claimed Taylor's family, who own a textile business in Suryapur, promised
Alex a job in their business, a luxurious lifestyle, and expensive gifts as incentives for
converting.
APRIL 2, 2024: Alex Sharma and Taylor Singh proceed with their planned marriage ceremony,
during which Alex converts and takes the name Jordan Singh, despite the objections raised
during the inquiry.
The inquiry by the district magistrate concludes, leading to a decision that the conversion had
potential allurement. Permission for the conversion is denied.
Charges are filed against Alex (Jordan Singh) and Taylor under Sections 3 and 10 of the Act,
accusing them of attempting an unlawful conversion.
Alex and Taylor filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bhanu Pradesh, challenging the
constitutionality of the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2024, and seeking
Page 7 of 22
quashing of the charges against them. The High Court dismissed their petition, upholding the
validity of the Act. Alex and Taylor have now approached the Supreme Court of Bharat.
Key provisions provided:
1. Section 3: Prohibits conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force,
undue influence, coercion, allurement, or any fraudulent means.
2. Section 8: Requires a declaration of intended conversion to be submitted to the district
magistrate 60 days in advance of the conversion ceremony. The person converting and the
person performing the conversion ceremony must both submit this declaration.
3. Section 9: Mandates the district magistrate to conduct an inquiry into the intentions, purpose,
and cause of the conversion within 21 days of receiving the declaration.
4. Section 10: Provides penalties for violations, including imprisonment from 1 to 5 years and
fines ranging from INR 25,000 to INR 50,000. Higher penalties apply if the person converted
is a minor, woman, Scheduled Caste (SC), or Scheduled Tribe (ST) member.
Page 8 of 22
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
The following issues are most humbly and respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Bharat are as follows:
ISSUE 1 WHETHER THE PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL CONVERSION OF
RELIGION ACT, 2024, INFRINGE ON THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM
OF RELIGION GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 25?
ISSUE 2 WHETHER THE MANDATORY INQUIRY PROCESS AS STIPULATED IN
BHARAT?
ISSUE 3 WHETHER THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF
AND THE INQUIRY PROCESS UNDER THE ACT REASONABLE AND JUST, OR
DO THEY VIOLATE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY PRESUMING
GUILT?
Page 9 of 22
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
RELIGION GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 25?
It is humbly submitted that the petitioner challenges the High Court of Bhanu Pradesh’s
decision, asserting that the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2024, violates
their fundamental rights under Article 25. However, the respondent contends that the Act
imposes reasonable restrictions to prevent conversions driven by coercion, allurement, or
fraudulent means, which are justified in the interest of public order. The inquiry process and
burden of proof under the Act are designed to curb unlawful conversions while ensuring
religious freedom is not misused for ulterior motives. The state’s authority to regulate
conversions aligns with Article 25(2), as it aims to safeguard public order, morality, and health
without infringing on genuine religious practices. Thus, the Act is constitutionally valid and
does not violate the petitioner’s rights.
2. WHETHER THE MANDATORY INQUIRY PROCESS AS STIPULATED IN SECTION
8 AND 9 OF THE ACT VIOLATE ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF BHARAT?
It is humbly that the Act aims to protect vulnerable groups, such as minors and women, from
coercive religious conversions, with the mandatory inquiry process serving to identify potential
undue influence. While the right to privacy under Article 21 is fundamental, it is not absolute
and can be restricted for legitimate state interests. Judicial precedents affirm that individual
choices, including marriage and religious conversion, must be respected but safeguarded
against coercion. The inquiry process under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act is proportionate,
minimally intrusive, and intended to maintain social harmony. It balances individual rights with
Page 10 of 22
collective societal interests, ensuring that conversions are voluntary while addressing concerns
about fraudulent or forced conversions. The Act reflects the state’s responsibility to protect
public order and mitigate tensions in a diverse society.
3. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND THE
INQUIRY PROCESS UNDER THE ACT REASONABLE AND JUST, OR DO THEY
VIOLATE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY PRESUMING GUILT?
It is humbly submitted that the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2024,
adheres to the principles of natural justice, ensuring fairness and impartiality in its inquiry
process. Sections 8 and 9 guarantee that affected parties, such as Alex and his parents, receive
an opportunity to present their cases, the inquiry is conducted impartially, and decisions are
based on justifiable reasons. The Act's inquiry process serves as a safeguard to verify that
conversions are voluntary, without presuming guilt or coercion. Additionally, Section 12 shifts
the burden of proof to the individual to demonstrate that the conversion was free from undue
influence, aligning with the state's objective of protecting individual autonomy while
preventing forced conversions. The procedural fairness embedded in the Act ensures
compliance with Article 21 of the Constitution, balancing personal liberty with social
protection.
Page 11 of 22
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
RELIGION GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 25?
¶ 1. In the matter before this Honourable Court of Bharat, the counsel of the petitioner,
seeks to challenge the verdict of the High Court of Bhanu Pradesh, bringing forth a petition
that we respectfully contend that firstly, there was no violation of Art. 25 of the Constitution
of Bharat, [1.1], secondly, reasonable restriction imposed by the state on conversions for
ulterior motives was deemed justified [1.2]. Hence, The Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act, 2024, does not infringe the fundamental right to freedom of
religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of Bharat.
1.1. Whether there was any violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Bharat or not?
¶ 2. It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Court that the Act does not violate the
Art. 25(1) of the Constitution of Bharat1 provides every individual the right to freely
profess, practice, and propagate their religion, but this right is subject to public order,
morality, and health. The Act does not infringe upon the right to practice or profess religion
but merely imposes reasonable restrictions to prevent conversions that are influenced by
misrepresentation, force, undue influence, or allurement, which are legitimate concerns for
maintaining public order. In the case of Ramjilal Modi2, where it was held that the rights
morality and
guaranteed under Art. 253 and Art. 264 were relevant to the public order. Similarly in
1
The Constitution of India Act, 1950, Article 25, Right to Freedom of Religion
2
Ramji Lal Modi vs The State Of U.P., 1957 SCC 334
3
Supra note 1, Article 25
4
The Constitution of India Act, 1950, Article 26, Freedom to manage religious affairs
Page 12 of 22
another case, where it was decided that if something disrupts not only an individual but the
current life of the community, then it is a public disorder5.

various state laws were enacted for such unlawful conversions which are pari
materia to the present act
¶ 3. Furthermore, according to the section 2(a) of Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and the same has been provided in the section 2(1)(a) of
the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 and The Haryana Prevention of
Unlawful, Conversion of Religion Act, 2022 states that “Allurement” means and includes
offer of any temptation in the form of:
(i) Gift, gratification, easy money or material benefit either in cash or kind.
(ii) Employment, free education in reputed school run by any religious body.
(iii) Better lifestyle, divine pleasure or otherwise.
¶ 4. In relevance with the present case, Alex was unemployed for the time being 6 months
and Taylor’s parents offered employment in their business, a luxurious lifestyle, and
expensive gifts as incentives for converting, which clearly falls under the definition of
allurement as mentioned above, and these contentions were upheld in the decision of the
District Magistrate, which was proved in the mandatory inquiry process as per section 9 of
the Act.
1.2.To what extent the state can impose restriction on religious conversion?
¶ 5. It is humbly submitted that The Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act,
2024 does not violate Article 25 of the Constitution6, as the restrictions imposed by the Act
are in line with the reasonable limitations permissible under the Constitution. The state's
interest in preventing forced conversions and maintaining public order justifies these
5
Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 1228
6
Page 13 of 22
restrictions. The right to propagate one’s religion under Article 25 does not include the right
to convert others through coercion, allurement, or fraudulent means. The state has the
constitutional authority to regulate religious conversions to prevent exploitation or
pressure.
¶ 6. Moreover, Article 25 is subject to public order, morality, and health. This means that
the state has the power to legislate and regulate religious conversions. Various states have
enacted anti-conversion laws to ensure that conversions are voluntary and not coerced. The
case primarily focused on personal laws, the Court observed that religious conversion must
be based on genuine belief and not for ulterior motives. The Court emphasized that
conversions made with malafide intent could lead to social disorder and affect public order.
The reasonable restriction imposed by the state on conversions for ulterior motives was
deemed justified7 and as per sub clause (2) of the Article 258,
Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State
from making any law—(a) Regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political, or
other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) Providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious
institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Feel free to specify
if there are additional formatting requirements or if you need further assistance.
The Supreme Court in the case9, ruled that the Act which was questioned did not violate
Article 25 for several reasons; the Court emphasized that the Act aimed at agrarian reform,
which is a matter of public interest and social welfare. Such reforms are essential to address
the economic and social imbalances in society. Article 25(2)(a) allows the state to impose
7
Sarla Mudgal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1995 SC 1531
8
9
Acharaya Maharaj v. State of Gujarat (1974),1975 SCC (1) 11
Page 14 of 22
reasonable restrictions on the freedom of religion to ensure public order, morality, and
health.
¶ 7. It is humbly submitted that the reasoning of the Supreme Court fully approves the
views of the M.P. High Court. The judgment proceeds on two basic postulates, namely, that
the right to convert another person is not part of freedom of conscience guaranteed by
Article 25(1) and that forcible conversions result in the disturbance of public order.10 The
Supreme Court recognized that religious conversions done under false pretences or for
unlawful benefits are not protected under Article 25.11 Thus, in relevance to the present
case, the respondent contends that the inquiry process under the Act serves to prevent such
unlawful conversions, thereby safeguarding the integrity of religious freedom.
¶ 8. Furthermore, the state’s interest in regulating religious conversions to prevent social
unrest and protect vulnerable individuals justifies the procedural requirements under the
Act. While Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion, it does not give absolute freedom to
convert without any oversight, especially where there are allegations of coercion or
inducement. The state’s regulation is reasonable, proportionate, and constitutionally valid.
10
Rev Stanislaus v. Madhya Pradesh and Ors., 1977 SCC (1) 677
11
Lily Thomas and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Union of India and Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 224
Page 15 of 22
2. WHETHER THE MANDATORY INQUIRY PROCESS AS STIPULATED IN
BHARAT?
¶ 9. It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Court that the Act explicitly aims to
protect vulnerable individuals—such as minors and women—from being coerced into
conversions. The mandatory inquiry aligns with this intent by ensuring that all conversions
are scrutinized for potential coercive elements. Given societal tensions surrounding
interfaith marriages and conversions, the Act reflects public sentiment regarding the need
for oversight in these sensitive matters. The inquiry process is thus seen as a mechanism
for promoting social harmony.
¶ 10. The basic concept is that when a person is influenced by other person to convert into
their religion at that point of time such laws and sections are necessary to protect the public
at large and does not violate the Art. 21 of the Constitution12. Judicial rulings have
underscored the need for protective measures in matters involving personal liberty and
social interest. In K.S. Puttaswamy13, the court acknowledged that while privacy is a
fundamental right, it is not absolute and can be curtailed for legitimate state interests. The
Supreme Court upheld Hadiya’s right to marry Shafin Jahan, after she converted to Islam14.
The Court recognized her individual choice and autonomy. However, it also acknowledges
concerns about coercion and forced conversions in interfaith marriages, emphasizing the
need to ensure that such marriages are consensual and not the result of undue influence or
12
The Constitution of India Act, 1950, Article 21, Right to Life and Personal Liberty
13
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161
14
Shafin Jahan v. K.M. Asokan (2018) 16 SCC 368(2018)
Page 16 of 22
pressure. Here comes the state’s role in safeguarding these choices against coercion and
undue influence, particularly in the context of interfaith marriages.
¶ 11. It is humbly submitted that the inquiry process is proportionate to the state’s objective
of preventing fraudulent conversions. It is narrowly tailored to verify the legitimacy of the
conversion and does not unnecessarily burden the individuals seeking to convert. It has
been the consistent view of this Court that legislative enactment can be struck down only
on two grounds. Firstly, that the appropriate legislature does not have the competence to
make the law; and secondly, that it takes away or abridges any of the fundamental rights
enumerated in Part III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provisions.15 The
respondents asserts that the inquiry process under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act is a
proportionate measure to achieve the legitimate objective of preventing fraudulent
conversions. The process is limited in scope, with the district magistrate being required to
complete the inquiry within 21 days of receiving the declaration, ensuring that the burden
on individuals is minimal.
¶12. Moreover, The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is subject to reasonable
restrictions if the state action serves a legitimate aim, is proportionate, and the least
intrusive method to achieve that aim.16 The inquiry process meets the proportionality test
as it serves the legitimate aim of preventing forced conversions while imposing minimal
restrictions on individual autonomy.
2.1. To what extent the state has interest in restricting individual’s right to marry and
right to convert?
15
Anil Chhari v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 2670
16
Supra note 13, K.S. Puttaswamy
Page 17 of 22
¶ 13. It is most humbly submitted that the state has the responsibility to balance individual
rights with societal interests. Religious conversions can potentially impact social harmony,
especially if done under fraudulent or coercive circumstances. The Act is aimed at
maintaining this balance by ensuring that conversions are genuine and free from external
pressure.
¶ 14. The Supreme Court has consistently held that rights under Article 2117 must be
interpreted in a manner that considers both individual freedoms and collective societal
interests. In cases like PUCL case18 it was established that individual rights could be
limited for reasons such as maintaining public order. The principle that privacy can be
reasonably restricted for broader societal interests can indeed be applied to other contexts,
such as ensuring the voluntariness of religious conversions19.
¶ 15. The Supreme Court in the case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India20 held that
fundamental rights can be subject to reasonable restrictions to balance individual liberties
with state interests. The respondents contends that the state’s regulatory framework in the
Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2024, is a reasonable measure to
prevent the misuse of religious freedom.
In a diverse society like Bharat, regulating conversions can help mitigate potential social
tensions arising from interfaith marriages or conversions that might be perceived as
coercive by certain communities.
17
Supra note 12
18
PUCL v. Union of India (1997) AIR 1997 SC 568
19
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 994 SCC (6) 632
20
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1308
Page 18 of 22
3. WHETHER THEY VIOLATE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY
PRESUMING GUILT OR THE PROVISION RELATED TO THE BURDEN OF
PROOF AND INQUIRY PROCESS UNDER THE ACT, REASONABLE AND
JUST?
¶ 16. It is humbly that in the present case, the process outlined in the Prohibition of
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2024 specifically under the section 8 and 9, does not
violate the principle of natural justice. The provisions related to the burden of proof and
inquiry process is designed to protect the individual’s interest while ensuring that fraudulent
or forced conversion are prevented.
¶ 17. The principle of natural justice is examined on the basis of the three rules: firstly,
"Hearing Rule," which provides that the party or person who will be impacted by the
judgement made by the expert panel shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present his
case and be heard. The district magistrate conducted an inquiry as mandated by Section 9
of the Act, allowing both Alex (Jordan Singh) and his parents to present their cases. This
fulfills the requirement that all parties involved have a chance to be heard. In Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India21, the Supreme Court highlighted that the right to be heard is
fundamental in any legal proceeding affecting personal liberty. The inquiry process in this
case reflects adherence to this principle. Secondly, the "Bias Rule" generally states that an
expert panel should be impartial while making a judgement. The judgement should be made
in a free and impartial manner that can uphold the natural justice principle. Thirdly,
"Reasoned Decision," which describes an order, judgement, or other court action made by
the presiding authority on a justifiable and valid basis. The principle of due process
mandates that laws, particularly those that limit fundamental rights, must be fair, just, and
21
Maneka Gandhi v. Union Of India, 1978 AIR 597
Page 19 of 22
reasonable, both in substance and procedure. The Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of
Religion Act, 2024, satisfies the procedural due process requirement under Article 21 of
the Constitution22 because it establishes a clear and fair procedure that safeguards
individuals against forced conversions.
¶ 18. The Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2024, does not presume
guilt merely because a person intends to convert. Instead, the inquiry process is designed
as a precautionary measure to ensure that the conversion is based on free will, wherein sec
9 of the Act23 mandates that the district magistrate conduct an inquiry into the intentions,
purpose, and cause of the conversion. The intent behind the inquiry is to verify the
voluntary nature of the conversion, not to assume that every conversion is inherently
suspicious or coercive. And sec 12 of the Act24 provides the burden of proof as to whether
a religious conversion was not affected through misrepresentation, force, undue influence,
coercion, inducement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage lies on the person so
converted and, where such conversion has been facilitated by any person, on
such other person. The inquiry process mandated by the Act ensures that conversions are
voluntary and not influenced by coercive tactics. This procedural safeguard is designed to
uphold individual autonomy while also protecting vulnerable individuals.
22
Supra note 12
23
The Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2024, § 9. Declaration post of religious conversion.
24
The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, § 12. Burden of proof.
Page 20 of 22
PRAYER
In the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced & the legal authorities
cited, humble pray that the Honourable Court, in exercising its constitutional jurisdiction,
renders a judgement in favour of Respondent. We respectfully request the following reliefs:
1. Dismiss the petition challenging the constitutionality of the Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act, 2024.
2. Uphold the charges against the petitioners under Sections 3 and 10 of the Act.
AND/OR
Pass any further or other orders that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the
case and in the interest of justice, equity & good conscience & for this act of kindness the
counsel on behalf of the respondents as in duty bound shall forever pray.
All of which is respectfully submitted & prayed
Sd/-
Counsel for the Respondent
Page 21 of 22

RCL TC 08 R

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RCL TC 08 R

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RCL TC 08 R

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE TC

12TH RCL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF BHARAT

WRIT PETITION NUMBER / 2024

FILED UNDER THE ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BHARAT

IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE

PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL CONVERSION OF RELIGION ACT, 2024

ALEX SHARMA (JORDAN SINGH) & ANR.

UNION OF BHARAT & ORS.

-MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT-

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSELS APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...................................................................................................... 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................... 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................ 12

1. WHETHER THE PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL CONVERSION OF RELIGION

ACT, 2024, INFRINGE ON THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF

RELIGION GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 25? .......................................................... 12

2. WHETHER THE MANDATORY INQUIRY PROCESS AS STIPULATED IN

SECTION 8 AND 9 OF THE ACT VIOLATE ARTICLE 21 OF CONSTITUTION OF

3. WHETHER THEY VIOLATE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY

PRESUMING GUILT OR THE PROVISION RELATED TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF

AND INQUIRY PROCESS UNDER THE ACT, REASONABLE AND

S. No. ABBREVIATION EXPANSION S. No. ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

2. ¶ Paragraph 2. ELH Eastern Law House

3. Art. Article 3. AIR All India Reporter

4. Auth. Authority 4. Anr. Another

5. Ed. Edition 5. W.P. Writ Petition

6. Govt. Government 6. S.C. Supreme Court

7. H.C. High Court 7. UOI Union of India

8. Hon’ble Honorable 8. & And

9. ILR Indian Law 9. SCC Supreme Court

10. MANU Manupatra 10. p. Page

11. COB Constitution 11. SCR Supreme Court

12. Ors Others 12. Sec Section

ACHARAYA MAHARAJ V. STATE OF GUJARAT (1974),1975 SCC (1) 11

ANIL CHHARI V. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, 2024 SCC ONLINE CHH 2670

ANURADHA BHASIN V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2020 SC 1308

ARUN GHOSH V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, AIR 1970 SC 1228

K.S. PUTTASWAMY V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2017 SC 4161

MANEKA GANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA, 1978 AIR 597

PUCL V. UNION OF INDIA, (1997) AIR 1997 SC 568

R. RAJAGOPAL V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, (1994) 994 SCC (6) 632

RAMJI LAL MODI VS THE STATE OF U.P., 1957 SCC 334

SHAFIN JAHAN V. K.M. ASOKAN, (2018) 16 SCC 368(2018)

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Constitution of Bharat, 1950

Act No. 16 of 2022

P. M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India (19th Ed., 2021)

Tapash Gan Choudhury, Penumbra of Natural Justice (13th Ed. 2016)

Ahmad, T. & Law Library Of Congress, State Anti-conversion Laws in India, U. S. G. L. R. D.

which is now pending before this Hon'ble Court.

Civil Writ Petition No. [W. P. No.] ________________________ of 2024

THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT HAS APPROACHED THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF BHARAT TO HEAR AND ADJUDICATE OVER THE INSTANT MATTER

UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BHARAT. THE PROVISION UNDER

WHICH THE PETITIONERS HAVE APPROACHED THE HON’BLE COURT IS READ