[ad_1]
File photograph of Justice (retd) Madan B Lokur.
Former Supreme Court Judge Justice Madan B Lokur stated there was no immediacy that known as for passing the regulation, ‘Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance’, when the meeting was not in session.
- PTI New Delhi
- Last Updated: December 22, 2020, 22:18 IST
- FOLLOW US ON:
Former Supreme Court Judge Justice Madan B Lokur on Tuesday criticised the Uttar Pradesh’s new anti-conversion regulation, saying it can’t be sustained because it contained many defects from authorized and Constitutional viewpoint. He stated there was no immediacy that known as for passing the regulation — Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance when the state meeting was not in session.
If one seems on the ordinance from a purely authorized and Constitutional viewpoint, there are such a lot of defects in it. The decide does not must get into politics. Just have to take a look at the Constitution and see whether it is legitimate or not. “The Constitution says Ordinance can be passed if there is a need for immediate action. What is the need for immediate action to pass it when the Vidhan Sabha is not in session? Absolutely nothing… There is no way that this Ordinance can be sustained, said Justice (Retd) Lokur. He was speaking at the launch of the book launch In Pursuit of Justice- An autobiography, on former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court late Justice Rajinder Sachar. Justice Lokur further said that judges should be people oriented and the Constitution is above everything.
The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020, mainly envisages that no person shall convert, either directly or indirectly from one religion to another by use or practice of misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage nor shall any person abet, convince or conspire such conversion.
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh authorities on a petition difficult the constitutional validity of the Ordinance.
[ad_2]
Source hyperlink