Freedom to profess religion

Right to practice religion implied that a Muslim citizen had a fundamental right to offer his prayer at the time of prayers while he was travelling on Motorway M-3 and it was the duty of State to provide appropriate area to offer prayers at service areas of M-3

Order accordingly.

Freedom, individual autonomy and rationality characterized liberal democracies and the individual freedoms thus flowing from the freedom of religion must not be curtailed by attributing an interpretation of the right to religious belief and practice exclusively as a community-based freedom

Freedom of conscience could not be separated from the freedom of religion

While the freedom of conscience was an individual right, the right to religion had both individual and community based connotations.

Constitutional petition under Art.184(3) of the Constitution praying for promulgation of a new law against forced conversion from one religion to another

Freedom to profess religion

Scope

Petitioner had filed the present constitutional petition with the prayer that for the protection and enforcement of the fundamental rights of the citizens, the Supreme Court might direct the Government to promulgate a law prescribing it to be an offence punishable with imprisonment for a person who converted or attempted to convert any person from one religion to another by use of force, allurement or by fraudulent means or aided or abetted any such conversion

Validity

In view of Art.20 of the Constitution, there was no necessity of a specific legislation as had been prayed for, because every citizen had a fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate his religion

Supreme Court observed that where there was a forced conversion, the law always took its own course

Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly.