SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. That the impugned Freedom of Religion Act does not violate the fundamental rights
enshrined in the part III of the Constitution
1) That there exists a strong presumption of constitutionality of a statute and those who
challenge its validity must show that there has been a clear transgression of the
constitutional principles.
2) That the right to freedom of religion as enshrined under article 25(1) does not
recognize the right to freedom of conversion as a fundamental right. The Supreme
Court in the case of the Supreme Court in the case of Rev. Stainislaus vs State Of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors has upheld the validity Freedom of Religion Acts which
prohibit forceful, fraudulent and induced conversions.
3) That the Right to freedom of religion as enshrined under article 25(1) is not absolute
and can be subject to reasonable restrictions such as public order, morality and health.
Therefore, any act which prohibits forceful, fraudulent religious conversions must be
upheld as minting public order.
4) That the right to privacy is not an absolute right and has to be yielded to any of the
recognized restrictions. In the instant case, the requirement of declaration is only
intended to ensure that a conversion is not effected upon by force.
5) That the impugned act does not violate Article 14 of the constitution as there exists a
reasonable nexus between the discrimination and object sought to be achieved and
also that there exists no arbitrariness as the act has limited applicability only in cases
where there is forceful or fraudulent conversion.

II. That the State of Himalaya Putra has the Legislative Competence to enact the
Impugned legislation and that the field of legislature belongs to the State.
1) The impugned act was passed to control and curb social distress and disturbances caused
to due unscrupulous religious conversions and to maintain peace and harmony in the
society. Thus the said legislation comes under the subject Public Order which falls
under Entry I of List II of the Seventh Schedule.
2) That the impugned legislation was passed at a time when the state was witnessing serious
disturbances on account of forceful, fraudulent and enticeful conversion of persons from
one religion to another, and therefore the intention was to maintain the public order.