Several Indian States have enacted anti-conversion laws. However, data reveals a large gap between arrests and convictions, raising concerns about misuse and conflict with constitutional freedoms.

Uttar Pradesh Anti-Conversion Law: 2021–2024

• The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 targets conversions allegedly achieved through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, or fraud, prescribing stringent punishments and declaring marriages conducted for unlawful conversions as void.?
• The 2024 amendment further increased penalties, broadened complaint-filing rights, and imposed harsher bail conditions, including the possibility of life imprisonment in certain cases.?

Arrest–Conviction Gap in Anti-Conversion Laws

• States like Uttar Pradesh have seen large numbers of arrests (e.g., 1,682 arrests over four years) under their anti-conversion statutes, but these have resulted in very few convictions.
• This large arrest-to-conviction gap highlights issues such as vague definitions in the laws, improper burden of proof reversal, use of the laws to target minority communities, and weak evidence leading to acquittals.
• The Supreme Court has quashed FIRs where procedural or substantive legal defects exist and emphasized strict compliance with legal provisions for initiating criminal proceedings under these laws.

Misuse and Criminalization

• Misuse and criminalization under these laws manifest in arbitrary arrests, social stigma, and legal persecution, often instigated by vigilante groups aligned with Hindu nationalism rather than actual victims.
• Judicial rulings have quashed FIRs lacking legal standing or victim consent, emphasizing that criminal law should not harass innocent citizens.

Expansion and Challenges of Anti-Conversion Laws Across States

• Anti-conversion laws exist in states including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Jharkhand, Karnataka, and others, covering roughly 12 of 28 states.
• These laws increasingly criminalize conversion for marriage or inducement, placing the burden of proof on the accused and requiring government notification or approval.
• Some states, like Goa and Maharashtra, are considering introducing such laws.
• Enforcement and legal challenges abound due to vague definitions of coercion and inducement, risking misuse against minority communities.
• The Supreme Court recently questioned the legality of onerous conditions in UP's anti-conversion law, emphasizing protection of fundamental rights and procedural fairness.

Core Provisions of Article 25

• It grants everyone equality in freedom of conscience and religious expression.
• Persons have the right to profess (declare beliefs), practice (perform rituals and worship), and propagate (spread) their religion.
• The right to propagate does not include forced conversion, to respect others' freedom of conscience.
• The right extends to both citizens and non-citizens.

Landmark Case- Rev. Stanislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977)

In this case, Reverend Stanislaus challenged the Madhya Pradesh anti-conversion law, arguing that it infringed on the right to propagate religion guaranteed by Article 25. The state defended the law as necessary to prevent conversions by force, fraud, or allurement, which could disrupt public order.

• Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion, including propagation.
• The right to propagate does not include the right to forcibly or fraudulently convert others.
• Anti-conversion laws like the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, are constitutionally valid.
• Such laws fall within the state's legislative competence under public order.
• The ruling attempts to protect individuals' freedom of conscience and prevent communal tensions arising from forced conversions.

Major Problems with Modern Anti-Conversion Laws

Modern anti-conversion laws, particularly in certain states in India, face significant criticism for major problems including 

a).Violations of Fundamental Rights

• Right to Freedom of Religion and Conscience: Critics argue these laws infringe upon an individual's right to freedom of conscience and the ability to voluntarily change their religion, as guaranteed by international human rights law (e.g., Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
• Right to Personal Liberty and Privacy: The laws often require individuals planning to convert to notify government authorities in advance (e.g., the District Magistrate). This requirement is seen as a breach of privacy and personal autonomy, and the subsequent public call for objections can expose individuals to harassment.
• Right to Marry a Person of Choice: Provisions that criminalize conversion for marriage or declare "conversion for the sole purpose of marriage" as void are seen as violations of the right of consenting adults to marry a person of their choice, regardless of religion. 

b).Vague Terminology and Potential for Misuse

• Ambiguous Definitions: Terms such as "force," "allurement," "fraud," and "undue influence" are often broadly and vaguely defined, leaving them open to wide interpretation by authorities.
• Arbitrary Enforcement: This ambiguity allows police and non-state actors (e.g., right-wing vigilante groups) to arbitrarily target and harass religious minorities and interfaith couples, often without credible evidence of wrongdoing.
• Third-Party Complaints: Many laws permit complaints to be lodged by blood relatives or any other related person, which can enable political or social groups to interfere in personal matters, even if the individuals involved are consenting adults. 

c).Discriminatory Impact and Social Division

• Disproportionate Targeting: The laws disproportionately affect religious minorities, particularly Christians and Muslims, who are often the subjects of false accusations and arrests.
• Shifting the Burden of Proof: A significant problem is the reversal of the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty". In many states with these laws, the accused person (or the person who facilitated the conversion) bears the burden of proving that the conversion was voluntary, rather than the prosecution proving it was forced.
• "Love Jihad" Narrative: The laws are often fueled by the baseless conspiracy theory of "love jihad," a term used by right-wing groups to allege a plot by Muslim men to convert Hindu women through marriage. This narrative is not recognized by Indian courts or the central government but is used to justify the laws and create social division.
• Ignoring Voluntary Conversion Data: Empirical data suggests that mass forced conversions are a myth, and religious demographics in India have remained relatively stable. Critics argue these laws are political ploys to polarize society rather than address genuine issues of coercion. 

Impact of The Anti Conversion Laws

Intended Impacts

• Prevent Coerced Conversions: The primary goal is to protect vulnerable individuals (including women, minors, Dalits, and tribal people) from being forced or tricked into changing their faith through threats, financial incentives, or false promises (often related to marriage).
• Maintain Social Harmony: Proponents argue that these laws help prevent communal conflict and religious tension that can arise from accusations of forced proselytization.
• Uphold Public Order: The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of these laws on the grounds that forced conversions can disrupt public order, giving states the authority to regulate them. 

Actual and Criticized Impacts

• Procedural Hurdles: Many state laws require individuals intending to convert (and sometimes the priest or person facilitating the conversion) to provide advance notice to district authorities. This makes conversion a public affair, leading to scrutiny, harassment, and social ostracization.
• Few Convictions, High Harassment: Despite many arrests, there are very few successful convictions under these laws, indicating they are used more as a tool for harassment and intimidation than for securing justice for genuinely forced conversions.
• Increased Communal Tension: States with anti-conversion laws tend to have a higher incidence of violence and discrimination against religious minorities, as the laws embolden Hindu nationalist vigilante groups. 

Conclusion

For a democratic and secular India, freedom of conscience must be safeguarded, not surveilled. The wide arrest–conviction gap highlights misuse; laws should target coercion, not voluntary faith or interfaith choice, upholding constitutional liberty and secularism.
 

Download Pdf