# Smt. Nikita @ Najrana & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 352
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-30
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1348 of 2024
- **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-nikita-najrana-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51424
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law -U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion
of
Religion
Act,
2021
-
Sections 3, 6, 8 & 9 - Inter-Faith Marriage -
Validity
of
Conversion
-
Compliance
Requirements
-
Writ
of
Mandamus
for
Protection

The petitioners, belonging to different religions
(petitioner
No.
1,
formerly
Muslim,
and
petitioner No. 2, Hindu), sought a writ of
mandamus
to
ensure
protection
from
interference in their marital life and to restrain
respondents from disrupting their peaceful
cohabitation as husband and wife. They married
on 02.01.2024, post the enactment of the U.P.
Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion
Act, 2021. The petitioner No. 1 claimed a
conversion certificate from Arya Samaj Mandir in
2017, arguing that compliance with Sections 8
and 9 of the 2021 Act was unnecessary as the
conversion predated the Act. The St. contended
that the marriage lacked validity without
compliance with Sections 8 and 9, which
mandate declarations and inquiries for religious
conversions. Held: The 2021 Act, effective from
2 All. Smt. Nikita @ Najrana & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
353
27.11.2020, requires compliance with Sections 8
and 9 for conversions linked to inter-faith
marriages solemnized after its enactment,
regardless of prior conversions. The Act's
purpose, as per its preamble and Section 3, is to
prohibit
unlawful
conversions
through
misrepresentation, force, fraud, or marriage.
Section 6 renders marriages for the sole
purpose of unlawful conversion void, with a
proviso that Sections 8 and 9 apply to such
marriages. The 2017 conversion certificate does
not exempt the petitioners from complying with
the Act for a marriage post-2020, as the Act's
scheme prioritizes fresh compliance to ensure
legality and sanctity. The court, applying
purposive interpretation as guided by Central
India Spinning Vs Municipal Committee (AIR
1958 SC 341), Girdhari Lal & Sons Vs Balbir
Nath Mathur (1986) 2 SCC 237, and other
precedents, held that the petitioners' failure to
comply with Sections 8 and 9 rendered their
marriage's
validity
questionable.
The
writ
petition was disposed of with liberty to the
petitioners to file a fresh petition after ensuring
compliance with the 2021 Act.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C No. 10958 of 2018 which related the
rights
of
the
parties
to
receive
compensation
in
context
with
the
provisions of the NH Act, 1956. In the said
case, it was noticed that the subsequent
purchaser after issuance of the notification
under the NH Act, 1956 does not get a right
to contest nor does he have a right to
receive compensation. This as noticed
above would be seen and considered by the
Competent Authority of the National
Highway Authority of India.

68. The petitioner has also relied upon
the decision of Rana Shiv Ambar Singh
(Supra) in context with the Section 73 of
the Transfer of Property Act. The rights of a
mortgagee in terms of the Section 73 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1973 are different
to the rights of the parties which arise in
terms of the Act of 2002 and for the said
reason, the said decision does not come to
the aid of the petitioner.

69. In light of the above, the issue
regarding compensation in pursuance of the
land which stood acquired is to be
considered by the Competent Authority in
terms of the NHAI Act, 1956. The impact
of proceedings under the Act of 2002
would be considered appropriately by Debt
Recovery Tribunal concerned where the
petitioner has filed an application under
Section 17 along with delay condonation
application and as informed the delay has
yet not been condoned. In so far as the
mutation order is concerned, as noticed
above, it is only an order in summary
proceedings and would be subject to the
orders passed by the regular Forum which
would bind the parties.

70. In light of the aforesaid detailed
discussion, this Court does not deem
appropriate to interfere in the mutation
order, accordingly, petition is devoid of
merits and is dismissed. In the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, there shall be no
orders as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 352
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ C No. 1348 of 2024

Smt. Nikita @ Najrana & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjay Kr. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law -U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion
of
Religion
Act,
2021
-
Sections 3, 6, 8 & 9 - Inter-Faith Marriage -
Validity
of
Conversion
-
Compliance
Requirements
-
Writ
of
Mandamus
for
Protection

The petitioners, belonging to different religions
(petitioner
No.
1,
formerly
Muslim,
and
petitioner No. 2, Hindu), sought a writ of
mandamus
to
ensure
protection
from
interference in their marital life and to restrain
respondents from disrupting their peaceful
cohabitation as husband and wife. They married
on 02.01.2024, post the enactment of the U.P.
Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion
Act, 2021. The petitioner No. 1 claimed a
conversion certificate from Arya Samaj Mandir in
2017, arguing that compliance with Sections 8
and 9 of the 2021 Act was unnecessary as the
conversion predated the Act. The St. contended
that the marriage lacked validity without
compliance with Sections 8 and 9, which
mandate declarations and inquiries for religious
conversions. Held: The 2021 Act, effective from
2 All. Smt. Nikita @ Najrana & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
353
27.11.2020, requires compliance with Sections 8
and 9 for conversions linked to inter-faith
marriages solemnized after its enactment,
regardless of prior conversions. The Act's
purpose, as per its preamble and Section 3, is to
prohibit
unlawful
conversions
through
misrepresentation, force, fraud, or marriage.
Section 6 renders marriages for the sole
purpose of unlawful conversion void, with a
proviso that Sections 8 and 9 apply to such
marriages. The 2017 conversion certificate does
not exempt the petitioners from complying with
the Act for a marriage post-2020, as the Act's
scheme prioritizes fresh compliance to ensure
legality and sanctity. The court, applying
purposive interpretation as guided by Central
India Spinning Vs Municipal Committee (AIR
1958 SC 341), Girdhari Lal & Sons Vs Balbir
Nath Mathur (1986) 2 SCC 237, and other
precedents, held that the petitioners' failure to
comply with Sections 8 and 9 rendered their
marriage's
validity
questionable.
The
writ
petition was disposed of with liberty to the
petitioners to file a fresh petition after ensuring
compliance with the 2021 Act.

Case Law Cited:

1.
Central
India
Spinning
and
Weaving
Manufacturing Co. Vs Municipal Committee,
Wardha, AIR 1958 SC 341

2. Girdhari Lal & Sons Vs Balbir Nath Mathur,
(1986) 2 SCC 237

3. K.P. Varghese Vs ITO, (1981) 4 SCC 173

4. St. Bank of Travancore Vs Moh M. Khan,
(1981) 4 SCC 82

5. Som Prakash Rekhi Vs U.O.I., (1981) 1 SCC
449

6. Ravula Subba Rao Vs CIT, AIR 1956 SC 604

7. Govindlal Vs Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, (1975) 2 SCC 482

8. Babaji Kondaji Vs Nasik Merchants Co-op
Bank Lt , (1984) 2 SCC 50

9. Utkal Contractors & Joinery Pvt. Lt Vs St. of
Orissa, (1987) 3 SCC 279
10. Eera (through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf) Vs
St. (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 15 SCC 133

11. Swedish Match AB Vs Securities & Exchange
Board, India, (2004) 11 SCC 641

12. Reserve Bank of India Vs Peerless General
Finance and Investment Co. Lt , (1987) 1 SCC
424

13. S. Gopal Reddy Vs St. of Andhra Pradesh,
(1996) 4 SCC 596

14. Prakash Kumar Vs St. of Gujarat, (2005) 2
SCC 409

15. Anwar Hasan Khan Vs Moh Shafi, (2001) 8
SCC 540

16. U.O.I. Vs Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem
Vasco De Gama, (1990) 1 SCC 277

17. N.K. Jain Vs K. Shah, (1991) 2 SCC 495

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,
J.)

1. Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Yogesh Kumar, learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
Staterespondents.

2. By means of present writ petition,
the petitioners have prayed for a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents 2
and 3 to provide adequate security to
petitioners and further restraining the
respondents from causing any interference
in peaceful living of petitioners as husband
and wife.

3. Learned Standing Counsel points
out that petitioner No.1 earlier belonged to
Muslim religion and the petitioner No.2
belongs to Hindu religion and in view of
the provisions of the UP Prohibition of
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act,
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2021, unless compliance of the provisions
of Sections 8 and 9 is made by the parties
belonging
to
different
religions,
no
sanctity/validity can be attached to such
marriage.

4. The Act of 2021 was enacted with
the following object:

"An
Act
to
provide
for
prohibition of unlawful conversion from
one
religion
to
another
by
misrepresentation,
force,
undue
influence, coercion, allurement or by any
fraudulent means of by marriage and for
the matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto."

5. Section 3 of the Act prohibits
conversion from one religion to another
religion by misrepresentation, force, fraud,
undue influence, coercion or allurement.
For the purpose of the present case,
Explanation attached to sub-section (1) of
Section 3 has significance and, therefore,
the provision is being reproduced for a
ready reference:

"3. Prohibition of conversion
from one religion to another religion by
misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue
influence, coercion or allurement- (1) No
person shall convert or attempt to convert,
either directly or otherwise, any other
person from one religion to another by use
or practice of misrepresentation, force,
fraud,
undue
influence,
coercion
or
allurement or by any fraudulent means. No
person shall abet, convince or conspire
such conversion:

Explanation.- For the purposes
of
this
sub-section
conversion
by
solemnization
of
marriage
or
relationship in the nature of marriage on
account of factors enumerated in this
sub-section shall be deemed included."

6. Section 6 of the Act renders a
marriage performed for the sole purpose of
unlawful conversion or vice-versa as void,
however, the proviso attached to the said
section speaks of applicability of the
provisions of Sections 8 and 9 as regards
such marriages. For the convenience sake,
Section 6 is extracted as under:

"6. Marriage done for sole
purpose of Unlawful Conversion or viceversa to be declared void.- Any marriage
done
for
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 :

Provided that all the provisions
of Section 8 and 9 shall apply for such
marriages to be solemnized."

7. From the scheme of the Act of
2021, conversion from one religion to
another is not impermissible. Rather,
Sections 8 and 9 of the Act deal with the
provisions for a valid conversion and its
effect. For a ready reference, Sections 8
and 9 of the Act, 2021 are extracted as
under:

"8.
Declaration
before
conversion of religion and pre-report
about conversion.- (1) One who desires
to convert his/her religion, shall give a
declaration in the form prescribed in
2 All. Smt. Nikita @ Najrana & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
355
Schedule-I at least sixty days in advance, to
the District Magistrate or the Additional
District Magistrate specially authorized by
District Magistrate, that he wishes to
convert his/her religion on his/her own
and with his/her free consent and
without any force, coercion, undue
influence or allurement.

(2) The religious convertor, who
performs
conversion
ceremony
for
converting any person of one religion to
another religion, shall give one month's
advance notice in the form prescribed in
Schedule-II of such conversion, to the
District Magistrate or any other officer not
below the rank of Additional District
Magistrate appointed for that purpose by
the District Magistrate of the district where
such
ceremony
is
proposed
to
be
performed.

(3) The District Magistrate, after
receiving the information under subsections (1) and (2), shall get an enquiry
conducted through police with regard to
real intention, purpose and cause of the
proposed religious conversion.

(4)
Contravention
of
subsection (1) and/or sub-section (2) shall
have the effect of rendering the proposed
conversion, illegal and void.

(5) Whoever contravenes the
provisions of sub-section (1) shall be
punished with, imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than six months, but
may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine which shall not be less than
rupees ten thousand.

9. Declaration post conversion
of religion.- (1) The converted person shall
send a declaration in the form prescribed
in Schedule-III within sixty days of the
date of conversion, to the District
Magistrate of the District in which
converted person resides ordinarily.

(2) The District Magistrate shall
exhibit a copy of the declaration on the
notice board of the office till the date of
confirmation.

(3) The said declaration shall
contain the requisite details, i.e., the
particulars of the convert such as date of
birth, permanent address, and the present
place of residence, father's/husband's name,
the religion to which the convert originally
belonged and the religion to which he has
converted, the date of place of conversion
and nature of process gone through for
conversion.

(4) The converted individual
shall
appear
before
the
District
Magistrate within 21 days from the date of
sending/filing the declaration to establish
her/his identity and confirm the contents of
the declaration.

(5) The District Magistrate shall
record the factum of declaration and
confirmation in a register maintained for
this purpose. If any objections are notified,
he may simply record them, i.e., the name
and particulars of objectors and the nature
of objection.

(6)
Certified
copies
of
declaration, confirmation and the extracts
from the register shall be furnished to the
parties, who gave the declaration to his/her
authorized legal representative on his/her
request.

(7) The contravention of subsections (1) to (4) shall have the effect of
rendering the said conversion illegal and
void."

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that a conversion certificate was
issued in the year 2017 whereas the
aforesaid Act has come into existence in
2021 and, therefore, the provisions of
Section 8 and 9 of the Act, 2021, would not
be applicable.
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. The Court has perused Annexure-2
to the writ petition, which is a copy of
conversion certificate issued by some Arya
Samaj Mandir.

10. It is now necessary to give
reference
to
certain
judicial
pronouncements
on
purposive
interpretation of a statute.

11.

Jurisprudence
of
statutory
interpretation has moved from "literal
interpretation"
to
"purposive
interpretation", which advances the purpose
and object of a legislation. The Supreme
Court, in catena of judgments, has dealt
with the issue of literal interpretation vis-avis purposive interpretation.

12. The Apex Court, in Central India
Spinning and Weaving Manufacturing
Comp. versus Municipal Committee,
Wardha, AIR 1958 SC 341, has held that
it is a recognised principle of construction
that general words and phrases, however
wide and comprehensive they may be in
their literal sense, must usually be
construed as being limited to the actual
objects of the Act.

13. The Supreme Court, in Girdhari
Lal & Sons versus Balbir Nath Mathur;
1986(2) SCC 237, has held that the
primary and foremost task of a Court in
interpreting a statute is to ascertain the
intention of the legislature, actual or
imputed. Having ascertained the intention,
the Court must then strive to so interpret
the statute as to promote and advance the
object and purpose of the enactment. For
this purpose, where necessary the Court
may even depart from the rule that plain
words should be interpreted according to
their plain meaning. There need no meek
and mute submission to the plainness of the
language.
To
avoid
patent
injustice,
anomaly
or
absurdity
or
to
avoid
invalidation of a law, the court would be
well justified in departing from the socalled golden rule of construction so as to
give effect to the object and purpose of the
enactment by supplementing the written
word if necessary. It went to observe that
ascertainment of legislative intent is a basic
rule of statutory construction and that a rule
of construction should be preferred which
advances the purpose and object of a
legislation and that though a construction,
according
to
plain
language,
should
ordinarily be adopted, such a construction
should not be adopted where it leads to
anomalies, injustices, or absurdities, vide
K.P. Varghese v. ITO, (1981) 4 SCC 173,
State Bank of Travancore v. Mohd. M.
Khan, (1981) 4 SCC 82, Som Prakash
Rekhi v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC
449, Ravula Subba Rao v. CIT, AIR 1956
SC
604,
Govindlal
V Agricultural
Produce Market Committee, (1975) 2
SCC 482 and Babaji Kondaji v. Nasik
Merchants Co-op Bank Ltd. (1984) 2
SCC 50.

14. The Supreme Court, in Utkal
Contractors & Joinery Pvt. Ltd. versus
State of Orissa; 1987 (3) SCC 279, has
observed that a statute is best understood if
we know the reason for it. The reason for a
statute
is
the
safest
guide
to
its
interpretation. The words of a statute take
their colour from the reason for it. There
are external and internal aids. The external
aids are Statement of Objects and Reasons
when the Bill is presented to Parliament,
the reports of Committees which preceded
the Bill and the reports of Parliamentary
Committees. Occasional excursions into the
debates of Parliament are permitted.
Internal aids are the Preamble, the scheme
and the provisions of the Act. Having
2 All. Smt. Nikita @ Najrana & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
357
discovered the reason for the statute and so
having set the sail to the wind, the
interpreter
may
proceed
ahead.
No
provision in the statute and no word of the
statute may be construed in isolation. Every
provision and every word must be looked at
generally before any provision or word is
attempted to be construed. The setting and
the pattern are important. It is again
important to remember that Parliament
does not waste its breath unnecessarily. Just
as Parliament is not expected to use
unnecessary expressions, Parliament is also
not expected to express itself unnecessarily.
Even as Parliament does not use any word
without meaning something, Parliament
does not legislate where no legislation is
called for. Parliament cannot be assumed to
legislate for the sake of legislation; nor can
it be assumed to make pointless legislation.
[See-Eera
(through
Dr.
Manjula
Krippendorf) v. State (NCT of Delhi)
and Anr 2017(15) SCC 133].

15. The more stringent the Law, the
less is the discretion of the Court. Stringent
laws are made for the purpose to achieve its
objectives. This being the intendment of the
legislature, the duty of the court is to see
that the intention of the legislature is not
frustrated. If there is any doubt or
ambiguity in the statutes, the rule of
purposive construction should be taken
recourse to, to achieve the objectives. (See
Swedish Match AB & Anr. Securities &
Exchange Board, India & Anr., (2004) 11
SCC 641).

16. The Apex Court, in Reserve Bank
of India Vs. Peerless General Finance
and Investment Co. Ltd. & Ors. (1987) 1
SCC 424, held that Interpretation must
depend on the text and the context. They
are the bases of interpretation. One may
well say if the text is the texture, context is
what gives the colour. Neither can be
ignored.
Both
are
important.
That
interpretation is best which makes the
textual interpretation match the contextual.
A statute is best interpreted when we know
why it was enacted. With this knowledge,
the statute must be read, first as a whole
and then section by section, clause by
clause, phrase by phrase and word by word.
If a statute is looked at, in the context of its
enactment, with the glasses of the statutemaker, provided by such context, its
scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and
words may take colour and appear different
than when the statute is looked at without
the glasses provided by the context. With
these glasses we must look at the Act as a
whole and discover what each section, each
clause, each phrase and each word is meant
and designed to say as to fit into the
scheme of the entire Act. No part of a
statute and no word of a statute can be
construed in isolation. Statutes have to be
construed so that every word has a place
and everything is in its place.

17. Same view has been reiterated in
S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, (1996) 4 SCC 596, Prakash
Kumar Alias Prakash Bhutto Vs. State of
Gujarat, (2005) 2 SCC 409, Anwar
Hasan Khan Vs. Mohd. Shafi & Ors.
(2001) 8 SCC 540, Union of India & Ors.
Vs. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco
De Gama, (1990) 1 SCC 277, Reserve
Bank of India v. Peerless General
Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., (1987)
1 SCC 424: (AIR 1987 SC 1023) and N.
K. Jain v. C. K. Shah (1991) 2 SCC 495:
(AIR 1991 SC1289).

18. In the present case, as per the writ
petition itself, the alleged marriage between
the petitioners has been performed on
2.1.2024 by which date the aforesaid Act of
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2021 had come into existence. Therefore,
before the date of marriage, the petitioners
should have complied with the provisions
of the Act, in case, they wanted to attach
sanctity/legality to the conversion, which is
now controlled and governed by the
enactment passed by UP Legislature.

19. The scheme of the Act envisages
that if conversion is done in relation to
marriage of the persons belonging to
different religions, irrespective of any past
event, which might or might not attach
sanctity to conversion, in case a marriage is
solemnized after the Act of 2021 has come
into force, i.e., after 27.11.2020 as per
Section 1 (3) of the Act, the parties have to
ensure compliance of Sections 8 and 9 of
the Act and, in such event, conversion, if
any, done in the past, may be a relevant fact
during the course of inquiry conducted by
the District Magistrate as per Sections 8
and 9 of the Act subject to satisfaction of
the District Magistrate but it, in itself,
cannot be a substantive proof of a valid
conversion so as to attach sanctity to a
marriage performed after the Act, 2021 has
come into force. Therefore, the concerned
party to a proposed inter-faith/inter-religion
marriage
has
to
comply
with
the
provisions of the Act. Hence, the
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners that since Act has come into
force in 2020-21, but conversion was
done in 2017 at Arya Samaj Mandir
and, therefore, no fresh conversion is
required, is not acceptable and is hereby
discarded.

20. In view of the above, this writ
petition stands disposed of with liberty
to the petitioners to file a fresh petition
after ensuring compliance of Sections 8
and 9 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful
Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 358
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.01.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ C No. 1614 of 2023

Raj Kumar Gautam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pramod Kumar Shukla, Ashish Kumar
Mishra, Pradeep Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Criminal Law - Arms Act, 1959 - Section
17(3)(b) - Cancellation of Arms License -
Public Peace and Safety - Judicial Review -
Article 226 of the Constitution

The petitioner, holder of an arms license issued
in
2002
and
renewed
until
17.12.2025,
challenged the orders dated 26.03.2021 and
06.08.2022, which revoked his license and
dismissed
his
appeal,
respectively.
The
revocation was based on the petitioner's alleged
conduct during a sensitive period in 2018,
involving
spreading
communal
rumors,
instigating villagers, and disrupting public order
despite Section 144 Cr.P. being in force. The
petitioner argued that cancellation cannot be
based solely on pending criminal cases, citing
Ram Pratap Singh Vs St. of U.P. (Writ-C No.
7078 of 2004). The St. countered that the
revocation was not due to pending FIRs (where
the petitioner was not named) but due to his
conduct threatening public peace and safety, as
recorded in the impugned order. Held: Section
17(3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, empowers the
licensing authority to revoke a license if deemed
necessary for public peace or safety. The
competent authority's order dated 26.03.2021
objectively detailed the petitioner's conduct,
including instigating communal tension and