Editorial-31/03/2026
Spirit of the law: On legislation by Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh on religious conversions
In early 2026, the legislatures of Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh enacted stringent “Freedom of Religion” or anti‑conversion laws, marking a significant shift in the legal governance of religious conversions in India.
- In Maharashtra, the Freedom of Religion Act, 2026 mandates prior notice (60 days) before conversion and a post‑conversion declaration. It criminalises conversions achieved through force, fraud, coercion, allurement, or pressure, with penalties including imprisonment and fines. Critics argue that mandatory notice and excessive administrative oversight intrude into personal autonomy and the freedom of conscience.
- In Chhattisgarh, the Dharm Swatantraya Vidheyak, 2026 (Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026) broadens earlier law with even stricter definitions and penalties, including life imprisonment for “mass conversions,” mandatory declarations, and public disclosure of conversion details.
Both laws aspire to eliminate unlawful or forced conversions — a legitimate state objective recognised by the judiciary in Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), which upheld state regulation to prevent conversion by fraud or allurement while preserving freedom to propagate religion.
Constitutional Balance: Liberty, Equality and Secularism
The Indian Constitution enshrines the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion under Article 25(1), subject to public order, morality and health.
- Fundamental Rights vs. Regulation: The spirit of constitutional freedom is rooted in individual autonomy, dignity, and personal choice. The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India reaffirmed that personal decisions affecting identity and belief fall within the right to privacy under Article 21. Mandatory state oversight — especially prior permission or public notice — can clash with this core liberty.
- Equality and Non‑Discrimination: Requiring administrative compliance for conversions — but exempting reconversion to “ancestral religion” (as in some proposals) — risks differential treatment based on religion and migrates from neutrality to regulation of personal faith choices. Critics argue this creates a chilling effect on voluntary conversions and potentially targets inter‑faith marriages and minority communities.
- Public Order Justification: States justify these laws on the ground that coercive or induced conversions may disrupt communal harmony and threaten social fabric, thus warranting reasonable restrictions. Preventing exploitation of vulnerable groups is a legitimate concern if narrowly and clearly defined.
Governance and Practical Challenges
The spirit of the law must be measured not only by intent but also by its practical enactment:
- Administrative Burden: Prior notices and inquiries place significant responsibility on district authorities, potentially diverting scarce public resources from other governance priorities.
- Burden of Proof: Many of these laws shift the burden of proof to the accused, raising risks of arbitrary detentions and misuse by vigilante state or non‑state actors.
- Legal Uncertainty: Vague terms like “allurement” and “undue influence” — if not clearly defined — could ensnare benign social or charitable activities within criminal liability.
- Judicial Scrutiny: Multiple such state laws are under challenge before the Supreme Court on grounds that they infringe personal liberty, right to privacy, and freedom of religion, highlighting an impending constitutional test.
Important Takeaways
- Constitutional Principles: Articles 25 and 21 protect freedom of religion and personal liberty. Reasonable restrictions are permissible, but must be proportionate and justified.
- Judicial Balance: While the judiciary has upheld early anti‑conversion laws as constitutional, contemporary emphasis on privacy and autonomy (e.g., Puttaswamy, Hadiya) demands a nuanced assessment of state intrusion.
- Policy Clarity: Laws must clearly distinguish between coercive conduct and peaceful exercise of conscience to uphold secularism and avoid being tools of social control.
Conclusion
The spirit of the law, in the context of Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh’s recent legislation on religious conversions, lies at the crossroads of protecting individuals from coercion and preserving individual liberty and autonomy. Legislation that seeks to suppress forced conversions must be tempered by safeguards that respect personal choice, avoid discriminatory treatment, and uphold the core constitutional values of secularism, equality and dignity. Unless carefully calibrated, such laws risk policing faith instead of protecting freedom, undermining the very freedoms they profess to uphold.
Download Pdf
