Noting that there was no “good reason” to decline bail, the Supreme Court rapped the Allahabad High Court for failing to show “courage” in granting bail to a cleric in an alleged conversion case.

“We can understand that the trial court declined bail as trial courts seldom muster the courage of granting bail, be it any offence. However, at least, it was expected of the High Court to muster the courage and exercise its discretion judiciously,” observed the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, granting bail to the cleric arrested under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

Discretion, said the top court, does not mean that the judge on his own whims and fancy declines bail saying conversion is something very serious.

“We are conscious of the fact that grant of bail is a matter of discretion. But discretion has to be exercised judicially keeping in mind the well settled principles of grant of bail. Discretion does not mean that the judge on his own whims and fancy declines bail saying conversion is something very serious,” said the top court.

The Supreme Court underlined that every year so many conferences, seminars, workshops etc. are held to make the trial judges understand how to exercise their discretion.

It was brought to the top court’s notice that the child being mentally challenged was abandoned by the parents and was thrown on the streets and the cleric, who has no prior criminal record, on humanitarian grounds brought the child to his place and gave him shelter.

“We are of the view that the High Court should have exercised its discretion by granting bail to the petitioner. There was no good reason for the High Court to decline bail. The offence alleged is not that serious or grave like murder, dacoity, rape etc,” said the top court.

“At times when the High Court declines bail in the matters of the present type, it gives an impression that altogether different considerations weighed with the presiding officer ignoring the well settled principles of grant of bail,” the court said further.

The release of the cleric should not now come in the way of the trial, cautioned the Supreme Court.

Flagging it as a cautionary tale for case pendency in courts, the Supreme Court said, “This is one of the reasons why the High Courts and now unfortunately the Supreme Court of the country is flooded with bail applications.”

“This matter should not have reached up to the Supreme Court. The trial court itself should have been courageous enough to exercise its discretion and release the petitioner on bail,” lamented the top court.

Prayagraj, UP:

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the law permits interfaith couples to marry under the Special Marriage Act without conversion.

The court also granted protection to an interfaith live-in couple facing threats.

The court observed,”Interfaith couples who choose not to convert for marriage can register their union under the Special Marriage Act.”

Justice Jyotsna Sharma made this observation while granting protection to a live-in couple facing threats to their life and liberty due to the nature of their relationship.

The state objected to the plea, arguing that the couple claimed to have married by agreement, which is not legally recognised.

The court dismissed the argument, stating that while marriage by agreement is invalid, parties can apply for court marriage under the Special Marriage Act without conversion.

“In my opinion, marriage through agreement is definitely invalid in law. However, law does not prevent the parties from applying for court marriage under the Special Marriage Committee without conversion,” Justice Sharma said in her order.

The couple, who expressed their desire to marry under the Special Marriage Act without changing their religion, sought protection to proceed with their registration.

“Supplementary affidavit has been submitted in which it is categorically submitted that they will continue to follow the faith/religion of their own and do not propose to convert and that they are mature enough to take decisions regarding their lives. Further they seriously want to enter into matrimonial relationship as per law,” the court recorded in the order.

The court granted protection to the couple and instructed them to solemnise their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, providing documentary proof in a supplementary affidavit. The next hearing is scheduled for July 10.

The Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954, provides a legal framework for the marriage of people belonging to different religions.

Under this law, one can marry with a person of other religion without changing his or her faith. It promotes a society where love transcends faith and is legally recognised throughout India.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)