SYLLABUS

GS-2: Government Policies and Interventions for Development in various sectors and Issues arising out of their Design and Implementation; Important Aspects of Governance.  

Context: Recently, both Houses of the Maharashtra legislature have passed the Maharashtra Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2026 (Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026) to “protect freedom of religion” and prohibit unlawful religious conversions.

More on the News

• The law is framed against the backdrop of alleged “forceful, involuntary or induced” conversions, particularly those linked to inter-faith marriages and perceived law-and-order issues.
• The Statement of Objects and Reasons explicitly cites Supreme Court jurisprudence that the right to propagate religion does not include a right to forcibly convert others.
• It is based on recommendations of a committee led by the Director General of Police (DGP) examining similar laws in other States.
• The legislation has generated debate around religious freedom, individual autonomy, and state regulation of personal choices.

Key Provisions of the Bill

• Scope and Definitions:
• Conversion through Coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, or allurement is prohibited.
• “Unlawful conversion” covers conversion by allurement, coercion, deceit, force, misrepresentation, threat, undue influence, fraudulent means, or brainwashing through the medium of education.​
• “Allurement” includes material benefits, employment, marriage promises, or inducements.
• “Coercion” includes physical force, psychological pressure, threats to life, limb or property, threat of divine displeasure or social ex‑communication.​
• Marriage and Child of “Unlawful Conversion”:
  • Any marriage solemnised with the sole purpose of unlawful conversion can be declared null and void by a court on a petition by either party.​
  • A child born out of a marriage/relationship “caused due to unlawful conversion” shall:
    • be deemed to belong to the religion of the mother before such marriage,
    • be entitled to maintenance under section 144 BNSS, 2023.
• Procedure for Lawful Conversion:
• Any person intending to convert, and any person/institution organising a conversion ceremony, must give 60 days’ prior notice to the District Magistrate/Competent Authority.​
• The Authority may order a police inquiry and must direct criminal proceedings if it finds a contravention of the Act.​
• Complaints, Police Powers and Burden of Proof:
  • FIR may be filed by the converted person, parents, siblings or any person related by blood, marriage or adoption; police must mandatorily register it.​
  • The burden of proof that a conversion was lawful lies on the person who caused the conversion and on the abettor.​
• Punishments and Institutional Penalties:
  • General offence: up to 7 years’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh.​
  • If the victim is a minor, a person of unsound mind, a woman or SC/ST: 7 years and ₹5 lakh fine.​
  • Mass conversion: 7 years and ₹5 lakh fine.​

Objectives of the Law

• Prevent unlawful conversions while upholding religious freedom: To curb conversions through coercion, fraud, or inducement, while ensuring that genuine conversions based on free and informed consent are protected.
• Maintain public order and regulate organised conversions: To address disputes arising from interfaith conversions and marriages, and prevent organised or mass conversions that may disrupt social harmony.
• Protect vulnerable sections of society: To safeguard women, minors, and socio-economically weaker groups from exploitation or undue influence in matters of religious conversion.
• Ensure legal clarity and deterrence: To fill gaps in existing laws by providing specific definitions, procedures, and penal provisions for unlawful conversions, thereby strengthening enforcement.

Criticisms / Issues with the Law

• Overbroad Definitions and Chilling Effect: Expansive terms like “allurement” (including glorification of one religion) may restrict legitimate religious expression and preaching, raising concerns under Articles 19 and 25.
• Privacy and Autonomy Concerns: Mandatory prior notice, public disclosure, and objection procedures intrude into personal religious choices, potentially violating the right to privacy (Puttaswamy) and individual autonomy.
• Burden of Proof Reversal: Placing the onus on the accused to prove the legality of conversion may contradict principles of criminal jurisprudence and make lawful activities legally vulnerable.
• Scope for Misuse and Harassment: Provisions such as suo motu police action and a broad locus for complaints may enable misuse, particularly targeting interfaith couples and minority communities.
• Impact on Personal Relationships and Family Rights: Declaring marriages void and prescribing a child’s religion may lead to state overreach into intimate personal matters, potentially conflicting with judicial precedents on freedom of choice and marriage (Hadiya case).

Status of Anti‑conversion Laws in India

• Multiple States (Odisha, MP, UP, Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, etc.) have enacted anti‑conversion laws with similar structures.
• In 2015, the Union Law Ministry opined that a central anti-conversion law is not feasible because “public order” and “police” are State subjects.
• In a 2022 affidavit, the Union Home Ministry told the Supreme Court that the right to religion does not include a right to convert others through fraud, coercion, allurement, etc., implicitly endorsing States’ power to regulate such conversions

SC’s Judgments Relating to Anti-Conversion Laws

• Rev Stanislaus case (1977): The Supreme Court ruled that the right to practice and propagate religion does not include the right to convert others.
  • The Supreme Court stated that Fraudulent or induced conversion impinged upon the right to freedom of conscience of an individual apart from hampering public order and, therefore, the state is well within its power to regulate/restrict it.
• Sarla Mudgal case (1995):The Supreme Court decided that converting to another religion for marriage is allowed. However, it made clear that such conversions cannot be used to avoid legal responsibilities or obligations.
• Hadiya Marriage case (2018): The Supreme Court upheld that adults have the fundamental right to marry and convert to another religion of their choice, asserting that the state should not interfere in an individual’s freedom to make such personal decisions.