DRAWING A distinction between propagation of religion and forced conversion, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said what is protected under the Constitution is the former.“There is a difference between propagation of religion and forcible conversion. Here what is protected is propagation of religion,” said Justice B V Nagarathna, who is part of a nine-judge bench examining constitutional questions arising from review petitions in the 2018 Sabarimala verdict.The judge made the observation as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta drew the attention of the bench to the drafting history of the provisions governing religious freedom in the Constitution. The bench presided by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant also comprises Justices M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.Mehta, who was reading from his written submissions, said, “Yes not by force or inducement or coercion etc…these were the words used by everyone (during constituent assembly debates), that if you convert someone by force, inducement, threat, coercion, then it is no conversion at all. You can propagate. You can convince someone, you can say these are the better things about my religion etc”.Referring to the history of the drafting of the clauses, the SG said: “The Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights and Minorities was chaired by Sardar Vallabhai Patel and the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights had 10 members, including J B Kripalani, M R Masani, Prof K T Shah, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, Sir Alladi Krishnaswamy Aiyar, K M Munshi and Dr B R Ambedkar.“K M Munshi submitted his note and draft articles, proposing Article VI which provided all citizens equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to ‘profess’ and ‘practice’ religion, compatible with public order, health,” he said, adding, “Your Lordships would notice that the word propagate is not there.”Clause (6) of the draft, he pointed out, said “no person under the age of 18 shall be free to change his religious persuasion without the permission of his parent or guardian” while clause (7) said “conversion from one religion to another brought about by coercion, undue influence or the offering of material inducement is prohibited and is punishable by the law of the Union”.Story continues below this adThereafter “B R Ambedkar independently circulated a Memorandum and Draft Articles. His version affirmed freedom of conscience and rights to profess and practice religion, and added freedom ‘to preach and to convert’, within limits compatible with public order and morality,” the SG said.On March 26, 1947, “Article VI (1) of Mr Munshi’s draft was adopted”, in the form “all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess and practice religion in a manner compatible with public order, morality or health. The right to profess and practice religion shall not include economic, financial or political activities associated with religious worship”.On March 27, 1947, the Sub-Committee accepted Mushi’s formulation of the anti-conversion clauses 6 and 7 in the form “no person under the age of 18 shall be made to join or profess any religion other than the one in which he was born or be initiated into any religious order involving a loss of civil status”, and “conversion from one religion to another brought about by coercion or undue influence shall not be recognised by law and the exercise of such coercion shall be an offence”.In the first conjoint Draft Report of the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights published on April 3, 1947, Clause 16 said, “All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess and practice religion subject to public order, morality or health and to the other provisions of this chapter”, while clauses 22 and 23 retained the anti-conversion provisions (clauses 6 and 7 of Munshi’s draft).Story continues below this adThe “anti-conversion clauses 22 and 23 went through minor changes”. In Clause 22, for the words “converted to” substitute the words “made to join or profess” while in Clause 23, the words “or undue influence” was omitted.The SG’s note said though “Ambedkar proposed that the clause should end with the words “recognised by law”, this was not accepted by the committee.On April 17-18, 1947, a Sub-Committee of Minorities was formed with H C Mookherjee as its Chairman. M Ruthnaswamy, who was one of its members, pointed out that Christianity and Islam are essentially proselytising religions and the clause should permit them to propagate their faith. He “also raised concern that the anti-conversion clause 21 may ‘break up’ family life”.C Rajagopalachari questioned the necessity of Clause 22, when it was covered by the ordinary law of the land, e.g., the Indian Penal Code.Story continues below this adClause 21 was re-drafted to include that no conversion would be recognised till attested by a Magistrate after due inquiry and the Minorities Sub-Committee also suggested that the word “propagate” be added to Clause 16, the SG’s written submission said.It added that “the word ‘propagate’ was taken up at the instance of Ruthnaswamy. Munshi and Aiyar noted it was already covered by free speech guarantees, but G V Pant intervened and said it ‘at worst is redundant’ and it may not harm anyone to adopt it. The word was thus included”.The note said: “The debate on anti-conversion clauses (21 and 22) between S P Mookerjee, Bakshi Tek Chand, Frank Anthony and Ruthnaswamy was settled by Sardar Patel’s observation that forced and fraudulent conversion was already an offence under existing statutory law, and the matter was better left to the legislature.” Thus clauses 21 and 22 too were deleted.