Maharashtra's State Anti-Conversion Law Unconstitutionally Restricts Religious Freedom

Nyaya Host · Intro

Aaj ka motion yeh hai: 'Maharashtra's State Anti-Conversion Law Unconstitutionally Restricts Religious Freedom' — yani kya Maharashtra ka dharm-parivartan virodhi kanoon nagrik ki dharmik swatantrata ka ulanghan karta hai ya nahi, yeh ek mahatvapurna samvaidhanik prashna hai. Main Nyaya, aaj ki moderator, dono pakshon ko neutral manch deti hoon — aur citizens se nivedan karti hoon ki debate sunkar apna nirnay khud karein. Pehle Counsel Aarav apna paksh rakhein — aap shuru karein.

Aarav Paksh · For

My lord, main yeh clearly kehna chahta hoon ki Maharashtra ka proposed State Anti-Conversion Law, apni core structure mein, Article 25 ke directly against jaata hai — jo har nagrik ko apni marzi se dharm profess, practise aur propagate karne ka fundamental adhikar deta hai. Article 25 ke under, conversion tabhi restricted ho sakta hai jab public order, morality ya health genuinely khatre mein ho — lekin ek blanket prior-permission requirement ya marriage-based conversion nullification, jo kisi bhi objective threat ke bina lagayi jaaye, woh constitutionally valid nahi ho sakti. Isliye main nivedan karta hoon ki yeh motion sahi hai aur is dalil ko poori tarah paksh mein sunne ki request karta hoon.

Ref: Constitution of India · Article 25

Bina Vipaksh · Against

My Lord, main is motion ka poora vipaksh karti hoon — kyunki Article 25 swayam kehta hai ki dharmik swatantrata 'public order, morality and health' ke adhin hai, aur isi adhin ek State ka yeh kanoon justified hai. Paksh yeh bhool jaata hai ki Article 25 ek absolute adhikar nahi deta — woh ek qualified adhikar hai, aur State ko in grounds par regulate karne ka pura constitutional adhikar hai. Isiliye main kehna chahti hoon ki Maharashtra ka yeh kanoon unconstitutional nahi, balki Article 25 ke apne hi dhaanche ke andar hai.

Ref: Constitution of India · Article 25

Aarav Paksh · Rebuttal

My lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki yeh kanoon dharm ki raksha karta hai — lekin Article 25 ek do-taraf ki talwar hai: woh sirf 'profess aur practise' nahi, balki 'propagate' karne ka adhikar bhi deta hai, aur propagation se hi voluntary conversion ka raasta khulta hai. Jab State prior permission aur bureaucratic scrutiny ke through conversion ko rokta hai, toh woh us 'propagate' ke adhikar ko directly kuchal deta hai — jo Constitution ne explicitly diya hai. Is tarah ka kanoon Article 25 ke explicit text se hi seedha takraata hai, my lord.

Ref: Constitution of India · Article 25

Bina Vipaksh · Rebuttal

My lord, paksh ki yeh dalil ki Article 25 conversion ka 'absolute right' deta hai — yeh fundamentally galat hai. Article 25 khud kehta hai ki yeh right 'public order, morality and health' ke subject to hai — matlab yeh right conditional hai, absolute nahi. Aur agar Maharashtra ka anti-conversion law in hi constitutional limits ke andar kaam karta hai, to main samajhti hoon ki paksh ke paas koi valid unconstitutionality ka argument bachta hi nahi.

Ref: Constitution of India · Article 25

Nyaya Host · Suggestion

Petitioner ki taraf ne Article 25 ke antargat har vyakti ke dharma chunne ke adhikar ko central banaya — unka kehna hai ki proposed anti-conversion law is fundamental right par asamaanjasya rok lagata hai. Respondent ki taraf ne public order aur morality ke ground par State ki regulatory shakti ko uphold kiya — unka kehna hai ki forced ya fraudulent conversion se protection State ka dayitva hai. Main kisi ko jeeta ya haara nahi kehti, lekin meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai: Maharashtra Legislature, agar aisa koi kanoon laaye, to use Article 25 ke explicit restrictions — yaani public order, morality, aur health — ki sankri seema mein rakhna chahiye, aur burden of proof clearly State par hona chahiye, accused nagarik par nahi, taaki Article 25 ki guarantee hollow na ho jaaye. Ab main Honourable Citizens se anurodh karti hoon ki is debate ko rate karen aur apni raay share karen.

Ref: Constitution of India · Article 25