D" ERA ETICAL MOOT COURT PROBLENM TH Happy land is a state with heterog following religion .

P " ,
22 % of population following rel religion . R . and the rest 12 % Anti-Conversion law known as "the H
prevent a rise in conversion based on allurement an different strata of society urging the government to
curb provision that if anyone wants to convert to a different religion the District Authority and the
adminlstration within thirty days But no notice is required in case of reverting back to own e eneous and
religious background having 60 % of population ion ' Q. 6 % of population follows comprised of diverse
population. Very recently it enacted an appy Land Freedom of Religion Act. 2014 with the object to d
demand placed by different placed . Section-8 of the said Act makes a he has to notlfy the sane before
prior to the date of conversio religion, Any failure on his part will attract a punishment with a fine upto
Rs. 1000/., In addition, conversion to any other religion by adopting the means of force, fraud or
Indutement is also punishable. Among others, Section 2 efines Divine Displeasure" as force, Section-2 (c)
defines "Fraud" is misrepresentation or any other fraudulent contrivance and Section - 2 (d) labels
"Inducement as the ofer of any gift or benefit" person converted by unfair means shall not under any
cicumstances be treated as converted by virtue of Section 3 of the said Act as fraudulent conversion may
erode mutual trust among dilferent religious and ethnic groups living in the society According to Section
S of the said Act, an offence has been said to be committed if the conversion is made by use of force or
by o two pto Rs. 25,000/. But in case of unfair conversion of the vulnerable sections inducement or by
any other fraudulent means and is punishable with imprisonment upt of the society like minor, women,
Dalt or tribal persons the imprisonment has been exte three years and fine to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ d
CWC filed a Public Interest Litigation with the contention that several to law, arbitrary and against the
basic tenets of jurisprudence. Besides the definitians mentioned in Section-2of the saidA ers are vague,
ambiguous and can restrict the evangelistic wark done by missionaries. t does X, head of a society calle
sections of the said Act, among others are contrary violate Article 25 of the Constitution of Happy Land
which provides full r strictions of public order, marality or health. Be it pertinent to mention here that
the Constitution and other laws of Happy Land i for the petitioner and the respondent exactly the same
as that of India n Argue