Fed up with Ads? Install Dainik Bhaskar app for news without ads
- Copy link
Four separate petitions have been filed in the Allahabad High Court.
- During the hearing on February 2, the High Court gave time to the state government to present its case.
- The state government had said that the ordinance was very important during the hearing.
The Allahabad High Court is to be heard today against the Uttar Pradesh Law Against Religion Transformation Prohibition Bill 2021 (Love Jihad Ordinance). Separate four petitions have demanded the repeal of this ordinance. On February 2, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamsheri fixed February 24 for the final hearing. Today the state government will present its stand.
The government had mandated the ordinance
On January 18, the Yogi government had said during the hearing that this ordinance is very important. In many places, there was a threat to law and order due to incidents of conversion. It was extremely important to bring such an ordinance to maintain law and order. Women will benefit the most from the conversion ordinance and will not be oppressed. But after that on February 2, the High Court was to have a final hearing. But the government took the date of February 24 to present its stand.
Supreme Court dismissed the petition
The Yogi government petition was filed in the Supreme Court to stay the hearing in the Allahabad High Court. It was also said that all cases should be transferred to the Supreme Court. But the plea was rejected by the Supreme Court on 25 January.
4 petitions against the ordinance
Explain that the petition against the conversion ordinance was filed by advocate Saurabh Kumar, Ajit Singh Yadav of Badaun, retired employee Anand Malviya and a victim of Kanpur. These petitions stated that this is only for political gains. In this, a class-specific can be targeted. The argument was also given that the ordinance is against the fundamental rights of the people from the constitution, so it should be repealed. It was also said on behalf of the petitioners that the ordinance can be brought only in an emergency, not under normal circumstances.