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.