Home International Cases Evangelical Fellowship of India & Act Now for Harmony and Democracy v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Court
High Court of India
Bench
Deepak Gupta, J. Rajiv Sharma, J.
Key words
Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2006, Articles 14, 19 (1), 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution
Cases referred to

Cases referred to 

  1. Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 908
  2. Satya Ranjan Majhi and another v. State of Orissa and others, (2003) 7 Supreme Court Cases 439
  3. Ramjilal Modi v. State of U. P., (1957) SCR 860
  4. Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 1228

Counsel who appeared

For the petitioners: Mr. Sudhir Nandarajog, Senior Advocate, with M/s   R.R.   David, P.K.   Singh, Aman   Sood, 

Tehmina Arora, Loreign Ovung, Febin Mathew 

Varghese and Dhiraj Philip, Advocates. 

 

For the respondents: Mr.   R.K.   Bawa, Advocate   General,   with   Mr. Vivek   Singh   Thakur,   Additional   Advocate 

General, for the respondent. 

 

Counsel who appeared
Date of Decision
20/08/2012
Judgement by Name of Judge/s
Deepak Gupta, J.
Noteworthy information relating to the case

Appeal allowed in part.

Other information

Evangelical Fellowship of India & Act Now for Harmony and Democracy v. State of Himachal Pradesh

438 of 2011-A / 4716 of 2011 -E

Facts of the case

The constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2006 was challenged. It was claimed that the Freedom of Religion Rules framed under the Act are ultra vires the Constitution of India and violate the provisions of Articles 14, 19 (1), 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.

Findings related to FoRB

FoRB violation – Conscience (i.e. having or adopting a religion of one’s choice). Thereby, the court found that in the case of restriction of religion, all persons living in India are entitled to Constitutional protection of equality and thereby cannot be denied of the same.

Holding/Decision

  • (1) ‘… we allow the petitions to a limited extent and strike down Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2006 and Rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Rules, 2007 as being violative of Article 14 and ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India. Rule 5 only insofar as it relates to actions relating to Section 4 is also held to be ultra vires. However, all other provisions of the Act and the Rules are held to be legal and valid. Both the petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms’.

    (2) ‘…we find that the Himachal Pradesh Act has gone much further than the Madhya Pradesh or Orissa Acts as far as the convertee is concerned. We have earlier discussed that our Constitution ensures that no person living in India can be denied equality under the law or the benefits of Part­III of the Constitution of India and every person is entitled to his freedoms, which are guaranteed under Part­III of the Constitution of India’.