vtnbwznl

‘Don’t See A Reason Why A Person Above 18 Can’t Choose His Religion; There’s A Reason Why The Word ‘Propagate’ Is There In Constitution’ :Supreme Court

By on May 26, 2021

first_imgTop Stories’Don’t See A Reason Why A Person Above 18 Can’t Choose His Religion; There’s A Reason Why The Word ‘Propagate’ Is There In Constitution’ :Supreme Court Radhika Roy8 April 2021 11:03 PMShare This – x”I don’t see a reason as to why any person above 18 cannot choose his religion. There is a reason why the word “propagate” is there in the Constitution”, observed Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Faliman Nariman on Friday.The oral observation was made when a bench headed by him was hearing a PIL filed by Ashwini Upadhyaya seeking to control black magic, superstition & mass…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?Login”I don’t see a reason as to why any person above 18 cannot choose his religion. There is a reason why the word “propagate” is there in the Constitution”, observed Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Faliman Nariman on Friday.The oral observation was made when a bench headed by him was hearing a PIL filed by Ashwini Upadhyaya seeking to control black magic, superstition & mass religious conversion of SC/STs through intimidation, threats & gifts.Observing that the PIL was nothing but a  “publicity interest litigation”, which was of a “harmful kind”, the bench warned the petitioner that heavy costs will be imposed if the matter was pressed.Following that, the petitioner withdrew the petition.The plea alleged that incidents of forceful religious conversion by “carrot and stick”, use of black magic, etc., are reported every week throughout the country. According to the petitioner, the victims of such forceful conversions were often socially and economically under privileged people, particularly belonging to the SC-ST. Therefore, it was contended that it not only offended Articles 14, 21, 25 of the Constitution, but was also against the principles of secularism, which is integral part of basic structure of Constitution. It was additionally alleged that the Government has failed to take any concrete action against these menaces of the society. Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

Continue Reading