Twenty-one petitions challenging prohibition of forcible conversions

bill, filed

A total of 21 petitions challenging the constitutionality of the

Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion an Anti-Conversion Bill
filed before the Supreme Court yesterday which was the last day for
challenging the Bill.

Chilaw Bishop Frank Marcus Fernando, Rev. Kumara Illangasinghe,

Bishop of Kurunegala, Dutch Reformed Church President Charles N.
Janzs, National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka, K.
Neelakandan, General Secretary of All Ceylon Hindu Congress, The
Centre for Policy Alternatives, Liberal Party National Committee
member Anura Samarajeewa, Attorney-at-Law Elmore Perera and
Colombo University Law Faculty lecturer V. Thambirajah Thamilmaran
were among the petitioners who sought to determine the
constitutionality of the Bill.

V. Thambirajah Thamilmaran, a lecturer of the Colombo Law Faculty

stated that as a university academic teaching human rights he was
concerned about the freedom of thought, conscience, expression and
religion including the freedom to have or adopt a religion of choice.

He stated that he was proud to have been born a Hindu. He stated that
the Hinduism allowed any one to change his religion.
He argued that the Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Bill if
enacted would harm the ideals of tolerance, forbearance, co-existence
and love which any Hindu could take pride and satisfaction.

They stated that the Bill titled "An Act to Provide for Prohibition of
Conversion from one religion to another by use of force allurement or
by fraudulent means and for matters incidental therewith or incidental
thereto" had been placed on the Order Paper on July 21 as a Private
Member's Bill of Parliamentarian Dr. Omalpe Sobhitha Thera.

Petitioners alleged that Clause 2 of the Bill would prohibit a person

from converting from one religion to another by means of force,
allurement or by any fraudulent means. They stated that "the use of
force, fraud or allurement" was a fetter placed on the freedoms
guaranteed under the Article 10.

They argued that if the freedom guaranteed under the Article 10 was
to be given effect to, such fetters should not be imposed on the
exercise of such freedom. Petitioners sought a Court determination
that the Bill was not consistent with the Constitution and needed to be
passed by a two-third special majority of the whole number of
members of the Parliament.