Cases referred to
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.
Appeal allowed in part.
438 of 2011-A / 4716 of 2011 -E
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.
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.
(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’.