- (1.) Delay condoned.
(2.) By means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenged sections 2 and 7 of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 (for short "the Act") and Rules 4 and 5 of the Orissa Freedom of religion Rules, 1989 (for short "the Rules"). The petition was dismissed by the Orissa High court. It is against the said order and judgment, the petitioners are before us by means of this special leave petition.
(3.) It may be noted that this Act has been held to be a valid piece of legislation by this court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya pradesh and others, AIR 1977 SC 908 wherein it has been held under : "19.We have no doubt that it is in this sense that the word 'propagate' has been used in Article 25 (1) , for what the article grants is not the right to convert another person to one's own religion, but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets. It has to be remembered that Article 25 (1) guarantees "freedom of conscience" to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular religion, and that, in turn, postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one's own religion because if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion, as distinguished from his effort to transmit or spread the tenets of his religion, that would impinge on the "freedom of conscience" guaranteed to all the citizens of the country alike. ";