New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, September 16, sought a reply from states that have enacted anti-conversion laws while asking a petitioner who gets to decide whether an inter-faith marriage is “deceitful” or not.A bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the anti-conversion laws enacted by 10 states, including Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Haryana among others.The lead petition was filed by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) in 2020. At the time, they had argued that the anti-conversion bills were based on a “baseless rhetoric” known as “love jihad”.Meanwhile, advocate and petitioner-in-person Ashwini Upadhyay told the court on Tuesday that his application was for a ban on “wrongful and deceitful” religious conversion. To this, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai asked, “Who will find out as to whether it is deceitful or not?”, as quoted by Supreme Court Observer. Senior advocate P. Wilson added that what Upadhyay was seeking was in the legislative domain and out of the scope of the court’s powers. According to the report, the bench then detagged Upadhyay’s petition. Senior advocate C.U. Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners challenging the law, said that the laws positioned as freedom of religion were anything but that. “The batch of laws are characterised as Freedom of Religion Acts, but they contain everything but freedom. They are virtually anti-conversion laws,” Singh submitted.He sought a stay of these laws, stating that they were getting more and more strident as courts grant bail and bring relief to persons accused and arrested under them.He argued that the bail conditions are on par with the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The burden of proof was on the convert to prove that they were not forced or “allured” to change faith, he said.At the same time, several counsel, including Senior Advocates Indira Jaising and Vrinda Grover, requested the bench to admit their interlocutory applications challenging the amendments made since 2020.The top court allowed the request, and asked additional solicitor general K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the states, to file replies within four weeks.