Proposed Karnataka anti-conversion bill: up to 10 years imprisonment and a max Rs one lakh fine
Belagavi(PTI): The proposed anti-conversion bill, which the BJP government in Karnataka intends to introduce in the ongoing Legislature session here, has a provision for imprisonment of those who indulge in mass conversion from three to 10 years and a fine of Rs one lakh.
The draft also says that the 'religious converter' shall give one month's prior notice in 'form-II of such conversion' to the district magistrate or any other officer not below the rank of additional district magistrate. Also, the marriages done for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion or vice-versa twill be declared void, as per the draft copy of 'The Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Bill-2021'.
The law once it comes into effect will encompass those who "misrepresent, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage, or abet or conspire such conversion."
However, this Act will not attract the penal provisions of the act for reconverting to his immediate previous religion.
"Provided that if any person reconverts to his immediate previous religion, the same shall not be deemed to a conversion under this Act," section-3 of the act read.
Under the proposed law, "any aggrieved person, his parents, brother, sister, or any other person, who is related to him by blood, marriage or adoption may lodge a First Information Report of such conversion, which contravenes the provisions of section-3."
According to the draft regulation, whoever contravenes the provisions of section-3 should, without prejudice to any civil liability, be punished with imprisonment for a term, which should not be less than three years but which may extend to five years and should also be liable to fine, which should not be less than Rs 25,000.
The consequences will be stern in case SC/ST and minors are converted.
"Whoever contravenes the provision of section 3 in respect of a minor, a woman or a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to 10 years and shall be liable to fine, which shall be not less than Rs 50,000," the draft read.
Further, whoever indulges in mass conversion shall be punished with imprisonment from three to 10 years and will be liable for Rs one lakh fine.
The proposed law says that the victim may get a compensation up to Rs five lakh in addition to the fine.
In case of marriage done for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion, the marriage will be declared void by the family court. In case there are no family courts, then the court having jurisdiction to try such cases can also declare such marriages void.
The offences attracting the provisions of the proposed Act will be non-bailable and cognisable.
Further, whoever desires to convert his religion should give a declaration in 'Form-I' "at least 60 days in advance" to the district magistrate or the additional district magistrate who should be specially authorised by the district magistrate "in this regard that he wishes to convert his religion on his free consent and without any force, coercion, undue influence or allurement".
After receiving the information, the district magistrate should conduct an enquiry through police "with regard to real intention, purpose and cause of the proposed religious conversion"
The proposed law further says that any institution or organisation which violates the provisions of the proposed Act shall be subject to punishment and their registration will be cancelled by the competent authority upon reference made by the district magistrate.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
