This Court finds itself in respectful agreement with the above pronouncement. Being of a religious persuasion or belief in a particular religion and continuance thereof is an existential choice. Manifestations of religious practices of a particular religion could lead to the inference of the person's adherence to that religion. However, faith itself cannot be seen unless the person chooses to make it obviouse. A clear and direct way of making known one's religion would be by way of a public statement or deposition through an affidavit in a Court. In the instant case the respondent made such public declaration - that she had re-embraced Hinduism and produced a certificate from the organisation which facilitated it. She reiterated this factum in the Plaint and then deposed so in an affidavit in the Petition. No further proof could be required, nor indeed could be led in evidence, to prove or disprove her apostasy. It is inconceivable how any trial could even be conducted in this regard. The best that the appellant would be able to achieve would be that upon the respondent deposing as to her apostasy in the witness box, the appellant would suggest vehemently to the respondent that she had not apostatized and the respondent would deny
the same with vehemence. Faith cannot be determined simply by the vehemence of the suggestion or its denial in a trial in Court.
Delhi High Court
Munavvar-Ul-Islam vs Rishu Arora @ Rukhsar on 9 May, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
Citation; 2015(2) ALLMR(JOURNAL)72
