Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020

Procedure for religious conversion:  The Ordinance requires individuals seeking to convert and religious
convertors (who perform the conversion) to submit an advance declaration of the proposed religious
conversion to the District Magistrate (DM).  The declarations have to be given with a notice of: (i) 60
days by the individual, and (ii) one month by the convertor.  Any violation of this procedure shall attract
punishment of: (i) imprisonment between six months and three years, and a fine of at least Rs 10,000
(for individuals undergoing conversion), and (ii) imprisonment between one and five years, and a fine of
at least Rs 25,000 (for convertors).  A violation will also render the conversion illegal and void. To
criminalize a certain kind of conduct is to declare that it is a public wrong that should not be done to
institute a thtreat or punishment in order to supply a pragmatic reason for not doing it and to censure
those who nevertheless do it . I feel like this particular patt of this legislation does the same .

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, or NDPS Act, was enacted to control addictive
drugs and prohibit their possession, dispersion, sale, import, and trade in India. Psychotropic agents
have the potential to change an individual’s consciousness, while narcotic drugs relieve anxiety. The
Indian Parliament passed the NDPS Act on November 14, 1985. Nonetheless, these types of drugs are
important in the practice of medicine. Consequently, the Act contains provisions for the cultivation of
cannabis, poppy, and coca seeds and the production of certain psychotropic medicines used for medical
purposes. The Act’s primary objective is to regulate the manufacturing, ownership, selling, and
transportation of narcotics and psychotropic drugs. The Act forbids the selling of nearly 200
psychotropic medications, resulting in these drugs being inaccessible over the counter to the general
public. These medications are only available for use with a prescription. Violations of this law can result
in a sentence of incarceration or a fine, or both, depending on the offense’s severity, which is
determined by the severity of the situation at hand. If the drugs are being used for personal benefit, the
penalty can be minimized. Furthermore, the legislation has been revised several times since its
inception.

NDPS dispenses with ‘intention’ to cause injury and Section 35 directs the court to presume the
existence of a culpable mental state for all the offences under the Act. In law, if possession is to
constitute an offence, it must mean conscious possession. For example, if a thing is put in the hand of a
sleeping person A, then it cannot be said that A is in possession of it. Similarly, if something is slipped in
the handbag of B, then B cannot be said to be in possession of it.

However, under NDPS, knowledge of the contents is imputed to the accused. Section 54 says that it is to
be presumed that a person has committed an offence under the Act, if he fails to account satisfactorily
for the possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or any other incriminating article.
Dowry Prohibition Act

The Commission examined Section 304-B IPC in the light of various judicial pronouncements and
critically dealt with the substantive as well as procedural aspects of the subject. The Commission finds
that the offence of murder is not the same thing as the offence of dowry death. Though death of bride
may be a common element in both the offences, the absence of direct connection between the husband
and the death of wife distinguished the offence of dowry death from the offence of murder and is a
strong mitigating factor. Besides, the presumptive character of the offence of dowry death and cardinal
principle of proportionality as well as the underlying scheme of the Penal Code go against the proposed
prescription of death sentence in case of dowry death. It may be pertinent to point out that where a
case of dowry death also falls within the ambit of the offence of murder, awarding death sentence is
legally permissible. Of course, the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court for award of death
sentence, especially, the dictum of ‘rarest of rare case, may have to be adhered to in such cases as well.
Thus having given its careful consideration to the subject, the Commission reached the conclusion that
there is no warrant for amending Section 304-B IPC to provide for death sentence. That being so, one
may wander as to what then has been the necessity for submitting such a report where only status quo
is recommended to be maintained and no further change in the law is suggested. In other words, what is
the utility of making a negative recommendation instead of a positive one. The Commission was seized
of this aspect especially, having regard to the fact that the 3 present reference has been a fall out of a
Court’s Order. However, the Commission found a lot of misgivings and misapprehension associated with
the subject of dowry death. Dowry death is quite often confused with the offence of murder. There may
be instances where the two may overlap with each other. This gives rise to demand for parity in the
matter of sentence in both these cases. Nevertheless, the two offences are distinct and independent
offences. The Commission felt the finer nuances need to be spelt out clearly for their better
understanding and appreciation. This will help in dispelling the ambiguity and confusion shrouded the
notion of dowry death vis-à-vis murder. The utility of this Report lies in providing clarity on the subject
for its correct understanding and appreciation and will help in effectively dealing with the cases of
dowry deaths by the concerned authorities.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Section 15 of the UAPA defines “Terrorist Acts”, which can be punished with either life in prison or a
death sentence if there has been a loss of life, or punished with at least five years or life imprisonment
in all other kinds of cases. Few would disagree that terrorism merits serious punishments. But at the
same time, the gravity of these punishments coupled with the stigma of being labelled a “Terrorist” for
life demands a high degree of care and attention in determining what can amount to a Terrorist Act.

Almost all anti-terror laws across the world require that impugned acts must be committed with a
specific “intent” for them to be punished under such laws. And, at the same time, they also limit what
kinds of “acts” committed with the specified intent can be punished as “Terrorist Acts”. Common
layperson ideas of terrorism from across the world suggest that this intent-act combination should be
reserved for serious acts of violence that are committed for advancing political or ideological goals.
Section 15 of the UAPA, however, seems to pay no heed to our common-sense approach.

Besides acts that cause death, Section 15 potentially labels as terrorism acts causing injuries or damage
to property without any qualifier that the injuries or damage be serious. Hypothetically, then, basic
property damage stands to be called a “Terrorist Act” under the UAPA.

However, Section 15 of the UAPA does not require that acts be committed for advancing a particular
political or ideological cause, nor is it even a prerequisite that the purpose behind any such acts must be
to spread terror or coerce government policy. The provision is so loosely drafted that acts which
“threaten” or are even “likely to threaten” India’s unity, integrity, sovereignty, security or economic
security can be punished as terrorism.