Interfaith Marriage Legal Challenge

Here are some advanced arguments related to the four issues from the respondent's side:
*. Infringement on Freedom of Religion (Article *):
- Emphasize the fundamental nature of the right to freedom of religion.
- Argue that genuine, voluntary conversions should be protected under Article *.
- Highlight international human rights standards supporting religious freedom.
*. Violation of Privacy and Personal Liberty (Article *):
- Argue that mandatory inquiries and prior permissions infringe on personal liberty and privacy.
- Emphasize that such provisions are too intrusive and fail the test of reasonableness.
- Case precedent: Refer to landmark privacy cases.
*. Burden of Proof and Natural Justice:
- Argue that presuming guilt undermines principles of natural justice.
- Highlight that the burden of proof should always rest on the state.
- Emphasize the need for a fair and impartial inquiry process.
*. State's Restrictions on Religious Conversions:
- Argue that the state's interest in preventing forced conversions should not infringe on legitimate, voluntary conversions.
- Highlight the importance of individual autonomy in matters of personal faith and marriage.
-- Show that the state's restrictions are disproportionate and overly broad.
Have there been any similar cases in the Supreme Court of Sindhara that could guide your appeal strategy?

For issue *, regarding the extent of state restrictions on religious conversions to prevent forced conversions, here are a few arguments and case laws that might be relevant for the respondent side:
*. State's Restrictions and Individual Autonomy:
- S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (*): Emphasizes the importance of individual autonomy and privacy.
- Lata Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (*): Recognizes the right to marry a person of one's choice as part of personal liberty.
*. Reasonableness of Restrictions:
- Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala (*): Any restriction on fundamental rights must pass the test of reasonableness and should not be arbitrary.
*. Proportionality Principle:
- Modern Dental College and Research Centre vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (*): Restrictions must be proportionate to the aim pursued.
Have there been any recent rulings or observations by the Supreme Court of Sindhara regarding the balance between state restrictions and personal liberties?

Given the significant constitutional issues and the involvement of fundamental rights, this case has a strong potential for legal intervention.
To better understand your situation:
Have there been any recent rulings or observations by the Supreme Court of Sindhara regarding the balance between state restrictions and personal liberties? This could help in strategizing your appeal.

For issue *, regarding the extent of state restrictions on religious conversions to prevent forced conversions, the respondent side can argue as follows:
*. State's Restrictions and Individual Autonomy:
- S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (*): Emphasizes the importance of individual autonomy and privacy.
- Lata Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (*): Recognizes the right to marry a person of one's choice as part of personal liberty.
*. Reasonableness of Restrictions:
- Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala (*): Any restriction on fundamental rights must pass the test of reasonableness and should not be arbitrary.
*. Proportionality Principle:
- Modern Dental College and Research Centre vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (*): Restrictions must be proportionate to the aim pursued.