TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................................

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................................

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..............................................................................................

STATEMENT OF FACTS...............................................................................................................

STATEMENT OF ISSUES .............................................................................................................

SUMMARY OF ISSUES.................................................................................................................

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..........................................................................................................

ISSUE 1: DOES SECTION 8(2), 8(3), AND 9(3) OF THE ABBOTTABAD

UNLAWFUL CONVERSION RELIGION ORDINANCE 2020 VIOLATE THE RIGHT
TO PRIVACY AND FREEDOM TO PROFESS AND PRACTISE RELIGION UNDER
THE MELUHA CONSTITUTION? .............................................................................................

ISSUE 2: DOES SECTION 6 OF THE ABBOTTABAD UNLAWFUL

CONVERSION RELIGION ORDINANCE, 2020 VIOLATE THE FREEDOM TO
PROFESS AND PRACTICE RELIGION UNDER THE MELUHA
CONSTITUTION?..........................................................................................................................

ISSUE 3: CAN THE MARRIAGE OF MS RESHMA AND MR ALI FAZAL BE

REGISTERED UNDER THE SPECIAL MARRIAGES ACT 1954?........................................

PRAYER ..........................................................................................................................................
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Hon’ble Honourable

Ltd. Limited

No. Number

Ors. Others

Para Paragraph

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec Section

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

w.r.t With respect to

 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Sr. No Case Name Page no.

1. Rev. Stainislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh 1977 SCR (2) 611

2. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra

Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt. AIR 1954 SC 282

3. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine

SC 1596

4. Digbijaya Missal & Another Petitioners v. State Of Orissa

2014 SCC ONLINE ORI 317

5. Chirag Singhvi vs State of Rajasthan & Anr, 2017 SCC ONLINE

RAJ 3442

6. Naveen Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for the Respondent, most humbly and respectfully, submits that the petitioner has
filed the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Abbottabad, in the matter of Reshma v.
State of Abbottabad, under Article 226 of the Constitution of Meluha. The respondent reserves
the right to challenge the same.

226. Power of high courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every high court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III and for
any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any high court exercising jurisdiction in relation to
the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such
power, notwithstanding that the seat of such government or authority or the residence of such
person is not within those territories
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

In July 2019, the new party under the leadership of Mr Panth came to power in the State of
Abbottabad, the largest State in the Nation of Meluha. The new party, called the ‘Ek Aur Party’,
promised widespread economic development and infrastructure improvement in the State of
Abbottabad, where economic progress suffered due to political and social issues. Currently, the
State of Abbottabad has 46% Hindus, 42% Muslims and 2% belonging to other religions. Due to
the almost religiously equal populous, the State witnessed massive religious polarisation where
each religion attempted to triumph over the other. Mr Panth had the tough challenge of ensuring
religious harmony and economic development. In the early months of 2020, reports began to
emerge of strategic religious conversions being deployed by religious heads to increase the
overall penetration of their respective religions. Owing to Mr Panth’s pro-Hindu stance, religious
conversions by the Muslim community gained traction and were widely reported in the media.
One method of conversation deployed was through marriage, where young boys and girls of
opposite religious fall in love and the girl or boy accordingly convert to the opposite religion. Mr
Panth, having taken cognisance of this subject, instructed his officials to prepare a law to ban
‘illegal religious conversions’. In response to the Chief Minister’s instructions, many of his
officers cited alternate news reportage of such conversations having no linkage to any religious
ideology or strategy and simply a case of youths of opposite religious falling in love and freely
converting at the behest of their partners. However, The Chief Minister was determined to ‘curb
the menace’ and overruled all objections in this regard. In November 2020, the ‘Abbottabad
Unlawful Conversion Religion Ordinance 2020’ was passed.

In December 2020, a young couple, Ms Reshma and Mr Ali Fazal, who were PhD scholars at the
University of Lucknow and had been close friends since their school days, decided to tie the
knot. In fact, in the University of Abbottabad WhatsApp groups, it was rumoured that Mr Ali
Fazal planned an over-the-top proposal at a popular restaurant involving a display of pictures of
their friendship and love since their school days. Pictures of the proposal went viral and attracted
the attention of certain fringe groups in Abbottabad, who began threatening the couple. The
media began painting Ms Reshma as a victim of a religious conversation. Mr Ali Fazal’s parents
insisted that Ms Reshma converts to a Muslim as she wanted to maintain good relations with her
in-laws; hence she agreed to convert. Due to their progressive and liberal views, the couple
decided to get married in the Hindu tradition, and a few days later, Ms Reshma decided to
convert as a Muslim. However, again the news of the conversion went viral, and the media gave
significant coverage to this conversion portraying the conversion to be forced and strategic.

On December 15th, 2020, Ms Reshma’s Uncle (Reshma’s Mother’s cousin’s Sister’s Husband)
filed a police complaint against Section 3, claiming the conversion to be unlawful. In the
complaint, the uncle provided evidence of Mr Ali Fazal’s father being close friends with the local
clergyman. In the meantime, the married couple filed an application under Section 9 of the
‘Abbottabad Unlawful Conversion Religion Ordinance, 2020’ for registration of the religious
conversion. The district magistrate, on receiving the application, asked Ms Reshma to provide
details of the conversion under Sub-Section 3 of Section 9 of the ordinance. Ms Reshma refused
to provide details of the conversion since she claimed her religion to be a private affair, and
divulging details of the conversion violated her right to privacy and freedom to profess any
religion. On failure to submit the details, the District Magistrate declared the conversion to be
unlawful. Failing to register the conversion, the couple decided to get their married registered
under the Special Marriage Act 1954. Ms Reshma, who began recognising herself as a Muslim,
was refused registration under the Special Marriage Act 1954.

Ms Reshma decides to challenge the order of the District Magistrate and officer under the
Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the High Court by seeking a prayer to declare Sections 8 and
9 of the Abbottabad Unlawful Conversion Religion Ordinance, 2020 to be unconstitutional and
direct registration of her marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. On the first hearing of
the matter, the Chief Justice decides to expand the scope of the case and sets the issues.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

~ISSUE 1~

Does Section 8(2), 8(3), and 9(3) of the Abbottabad Unlawful Conversion Religion Ordinance
2020 violate the right to privacy and freedom to profess and practise religion under the Meluha
Constitution?

~ISSUE 2~

Does Section 6 of the Abbottabad Unlawful Conversion Religion Ordinance, 2020 violate the
freedom to profess and practice religion under the Meluha Constitution?

~ISSUE 3~

Can the marriage of Ms Reshma and Mr Ali Fazal be registered under the Special Marriages Act
1954?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1
The Ordinance is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of citizens to regulate the
practice of religion and to prevent forced or fraudulent conversions, and it is in line with the
constitutional scheme of Meluha, which recognizes that the freedom to profess, practice, and
propagate religion is subject to reasonable restrictions. The Ordinance is not a blanket
prohibition on conversion but only seeks to regulate conversions that are carried out through
fraudulent means or for the purpose of marriage, and it does not interfere with the genuine
exercise of the freedom of religion or the right to change one's religion voluntarily and without
fraud or coercion. Furthermore, the burden of proof under the Ordinance does not violate the
principles of natural justice, as it is consistent with the burden of proof in other criminal cases.
Issue 2
Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Unlawful Conversion Religion Ordinance, 2020, which requires a
person to declare their intention to convert at least 60 days prior to the conversion, is a
reasonable restriction on the freedom of religion, aimed at preventing forced conversions. The
right to freedom of religion is guaranteed under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, but is
subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, and health. The
Supreme Court has recognized the state's competence to legislate on religious conversion under
Item 1 of the State List, citing public order concerns. The respondent states that Section 6 of the
ordinance does not infringe upon the right to practice religion under the Meluha Constitution.
Issue 3
The marriage between Ms Reshma and Mr Ali Fazal cannot be registered under the Special
Marriage Act, 1954, as it is not solemnised according to Section 6 of the Abbottabad Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020. Ms Reshma's conversion to Islam was declared
unlawful by the District Magistrate, making the marriage void. Additionally, the marriage is in
contravention of Section 6 of the same ordinance, as Ms Reshma was coerced into converting to
Islam for the sole purpose of marrying Mr Ali Fazal, rendering the marriage void. Therefore, the
marriage cannot be registered under the Special Marriage Act 1954.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1:
Does Section 8(2), 8(3), and 9(3) of the Abbottabad Unlawful Conversion Religion
Ordinance 2020 violates the right to privacy and freedom to profess and practise religion
under the Meluha Constitution?
1. The Counsel for the Respondent humbly submits that the Abbottabad Unlawful
Conversion Religion Ordinance 2020 ("the Ordinance") is a reasonable restriction on the
fundamental rights of the citizens of Abbottabad to regulate the practice of religion and to
prevent forced or fraudulent conversions. The Ordinance is in line with the constitutional
scheme of Meluha, which recognises that the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate
religion is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. Therefore, Sections 8(2),
8(3), and 9(3) of the Ordinance, which criminalises unlawful conversion by
misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or marriage and imposes
penalties of imprisonment and fines, are not violative of the Constitution.
2. The same will be proved via a two-fold argument-
a. That The Ordinance does not violate the right to privacy and freedom to profess
and practice religion under the Meluha Constitution
b. The Ordinance is in line with the constitutional scheme of Meluha
A. The Ordinance does not violate the right to privacy and freedom to profess and practice
religion under the Meluha Constitution
3. The right to privacy is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Meluha
Constitution, and the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion is guaranteed
under Article 25. However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable
restrictions.
4. The Ordinance is a reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of religion and
conscience, as it seeks to prevent conversions that are carried out by misrepresentation,
force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or marriage. Such conversions are not a
legitimate exercise of the freedom of religion, as they involve fraud, deception, or
coercion and are often accompanied by social, economic, or political exploitation.
 5. Section 8(2) of the Ordinance criminalises conversion by misrepresentation, force, undue
influence, coercion, allurement, or marriage. It prescribes a punishment of imprisonment
for a term ranging from one to five years and a fine. Section 8(3) imposes a penalty of up
to ten years in prison and a fine for conversion done for the purpose of marriage. Section
9(3) states that the burden of proof of the conversion not being for the purpose of
marriage lies on the person accused of the conversion.
6. The Ordinance is not a blanket prohibition on conversion but only seeks to regulate
conversions that are carried out through fraudulent means or for the purpose of marriage.
The Ordinance does not interfere with the genuine exercise of the freedom of religion or
the right to change one's religion as long as it is done voluntarily and without fraud or
coercion.
7. The Supreme Court has held that the state can regulate religious conversions that are
carried out by force, fraud, or allurement. In the case of Rev. Stainislaus vs State of
Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court upheld a law that regulated conversions
carried out by force, fraud, or allurement. Similarly, the Ordinance seeks to prevent
conversions that are carried out through fraudulent means or for the purpose of marriage,
which are not legitimate exercises of the freedom of religion.
B. The Ordinance is in line with the constitutional scheme of Meluha
8. Article 25 of the Meluha Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right
to freely profess religions.
9. Moreover, the law is not applied in a discriminatory manner, as it applies to all religions
equally. In fact, the ordinance aims to protect the rights of women, as the practice of
forced conversion through marriage is often used to exploit and harass women. This is in
line with the Meluhan Constitution's commitment to protecting the dignity and rights of
all individuals, regardless of their religion.
10. Furthermore, the burden of proof under Section 9(3) of the ordinance does not violate the
principles of natural justice, as it is consistent with the burden of proof in other criminal
cases. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the burden is on the
prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the conversion was done for the
purpose of marriage.
 11. It is submitted that the Uttar Pradesh Unlawful Conversion Religion Ordinance, 2020 is a
reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Indian
Constitution. The ordinance only seeks to regulate conversions that are carried out
through fraudulent means, and it is not applied in a discriminatory manner. The burden of
proof under Section 9(3) is consistent with the principles of natural justice, and the
punishment prescribed under the ordinance is proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
As such, the ordinance does not violate the fundamental rights of the accused, and it
should be upheld as constitutional.
ISSUE 2:
Does Section 6 of the Abbottabad Unlawful Conversion Religion Ordinance, 2020 violate
the freedom to profess and practice religion under the Meluha Constitution?
9. The counsel for the respondent humbly submits that Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh
Unlawful Conversion Religion Ordinance, 2020 does not violate the freedom to profess
and practice religion under the Meluha Constitution.
10. Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Unlawful Conversion Religion Ordinance, 2020 requires a
person who wishes to convert from one religion to another to give a declaration at least
60 days prior to the date of conversion to the District Magistrate. The provision is aimed
at preventing forced conversions and ensuring that conversions are carried out
voluntarily. The declaration must include details such as the name and address of the
person who is converting, the religion he/she is living in, and the religion he/she is
adopting, among others. The District Magistrate is required to conduct a preliminary
enquiry to ensure that the conversion is voluntary and not induced by force, fraud, or
allurement.
11. The fundamental right to freedom of religion is guaranteed under Article 25 of the Indian
Constitution, which protects an individual’s right to freely follow and practice any
religion of their choice. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the
interest of public order, morality, and health, as recognised by the Supreme Court in
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of
Sri Shirur Mutt.
12. Forced conversions are a serious issue that affects national security and the citizens’ right
to freedom of conscience, as identified in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India,
 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1596. Furthermore, the Court in Rev. Stainislaus vs State of
Madhya Pradesh (1977) upheld the state’s competence to legislate on religious
conversion under the State List’s Item 1, citing public order concerns. Similarly, in
Digbijaya Missal v. State of Orissa, the Orissa High Court upheld the validity of rules
requiring a declaration to a Magistrate before converting, which ensures voluntary and
bona fide religious conversion.
13. In the case of Chirag Singhvi vs State of Rajasthan & Anr, it was held that the
fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India
does not give a citizen the right to forcibly compel another citizen to change their religion
for the purpose of solemnising a marriage. The court held that such forced conversion is
not permissible under the fundamental right to freedom of religion and that a person
cannot be compelled to change their religion only for the purpose of marriage.
14. In light of the foregoing, the respondent submits that Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh
Unlawful Conversion Religion Ordinance, 2020 is a reasonable restriction on the freedom
of religion and does not infringe upon the right to profess and practice religion under the
Meluha Constitution.
ISSUE 3
Can the marriage of Ms Reshma and Mr Ali Fazal be registered under the Special
Marriages Act 1954?
15. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the marriage of Ms Reshma and Mr
Ali Fazal cannot be registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
3.1. The marriage between Ms Reshma and Ali Fazal is not solemnised
16. Section 6 of the Abbottabad Abbottabad Unlawful Conversion Religion Ordinance, 2020
states that any marriage which was done for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion or
vice-versa by the man of one religion with the woman of another religion, either by
converting himself/herself before or after marriage or by converting the woman before or
after marriage, shall be declared void by the Family Court or where Family Court is not
established, the Court having jurisdiction to try such a case on a petition presented by
either party thereto against the other party of the marriage; Provided that all the
provisions of section 8 and 9 shall apply for such marriages to be solemnised.
 17. In the present case, the District Magistrate declared the conversion of Ms Reshma from
Hinduism to Islam to be unlawful. Ms Reshma failed to provide details of the conversion
since she claimed her religion to be a private affair, and divulging details of the
conversion violated her right to privacy and freedom to profess any religion. Therefore as
per Section 9(7), the conversion is rendered void. Furthermore, as per Section 6, the
provisions of Section 8 and 9 has to be followed in order for the marriage to be
solemnised, and as Ms Reshma failed to fulfil the conditions laid down in Section 8 and 9
Section their marriage cannot be deemed as solemnised.
18. It is necessary under Section 15 (a) of the Special Marriage Act that the marriage is
solemnised in order for the marriage to be registered. Therefore, the marriage between
Ms Reshma and Mr Ali Fazal cannot be registered under the Special Marriage Act of
1954.
3.2. The marriage between Ms Reshma and Mr Ali Fazal is in contravention of Section 6 of the
Abbottabad Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020
19. Section 6 of the Abbottabad Abbottabad Unlawful Conversion Religion Ordinance, 2020
states that any marriage which was done for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion or
vice-versa by the man of one religion with the woman of another religion, either by
converting himself/herself before or after marriage or by converting the woman before or
after marriage, shall be declared void by the Family Court or where Family Court is not
established, the Court having jurisdiction to try such case on a petition presented by
either party thereto against the other party of the marriage.
20. In the present case, Ms Reshma was coerced into converting to Islam as Mr Ali Fazal’s
parents insisted that Ms Reshma converted as a Muslim for the sole purpose of wanting
to maintain good relations with her in-laws. It is also pertinent to note that Mr Ali Fazal’s
father was very close friends with the local clergymen. In the case of Naveen Kumar v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court held that a marriage that is void, such
as a marriage where one of the parties was forced to marry, cannot be registered under the
Special Marriage Act.
21. Therefore, it is submitted that the above grounds demonstrate that the marriage of Ms
Reshma and Mr Ali Fazal cannot be registered under the Special Marriage Act 1954.
 PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, the counsel for the
Respondent humbly prays before this Hon’ble Court to state that:

1. Section 8(2), 8(3), and 9(3) of the Abbottabad Unlawful Conversion Religion Ordinance
2020 does not violate the right to privacy and freedom to profess and practise religion
under the Meluha Constitution.
2. Section 6 of the Abbottabad Unlawful Conversion Religion Ordinance, 2020 does not
violate the freedom to profess and practice religion under the Meluha Constitution.
3. The marriage of Ms Reshma and Mr Ali Fazal cannot be registered under the Special
Marriages Act 1954.

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Counsel on behalf of Respondent

Sd/-