Introduction
Anti-conversion legislation has been a recurring feature of Indian federalism, with states invoking public order to regulate religious conversion since 1967. Maharashtra's Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, is among the most stringent such laws enacted, bringing questions of personal liberty, marital autonomy, and minority rights into sharp focus.
| Data Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| States with anti-conversion laws | 13 states since 1967 |
| Pioneer legislation | Odisha Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 |
| Key constitutional articles in debate | Articles 21, 25 |
| Offence classification under the Bill | Cognisable and non-bailable |
"The right to freedom of religion is not absolute." — Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, defending the Bill in the legislature.
Background and Context
Anti-conversion laws in India operate within a specific constitutional logic. The Supreme Court, in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), held that the right to propagate religion under Article 25 does not include the right to convert another person, as this would impinge on the other's freedom of conscience. This ruling gave states the legislative space to regulate conversions.
Maharashtra's move follows a state government-appointed seven-member special committee (under the DGP) to study legal issues related to religious conversion. Though the committee's report has not been made public, the government claims it recommended a special law. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis justified the Bill by stating that instances of forcible conversion are "causing disturbance to public order in the State and are affecting social harmony."
Key Provisions
| Provision | Details |
|---|---|
| Prohibited means of conversion | Force, allurement, misrepresentation, undue influence, coercion, fraud |
| Prior notice | 60-day declaration of intent before conversion |
| Post-conversion declaration | Mandatory |
| Complaint rights | Converted person, or parents, siblings, or anyone related by blood, marriage, or adoption |
| Marriage & conversion | Marriages solemnised solely for unlawful conversion declared null and void |
| Child's religion | Follows the mother's religion prior to such marriage |
| Child's rights | Succession rights to both parents' property; maintenance and custody with mother (unless court decides otherwise) |
| Offence classification | Cognisable and non-bailable |
Punishment Structure
| Category of Offence | Imprisonment | Fine |
|---|---|---|
| General unlawful conversion | Up to 7 years | ₹1 lakh |
| Conversion of minor, woman, person of unsound mind, SC/ST | Up to 7 years | ₹5 lakh |
| Mass conversion | Similar to above | ₹5 lakh |
| Repeat offender | Up to 10 years | ₹7 lakh |
| Institution found guilty | Registration cancellation + withdrawal of grants | Up to ₹5 lakh |
Constitutional Analysis
Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion — subject to public order, morality, and health. The Bill's supporters argue it operates precisely within these restrictions by targeting unlawful means of conversion, not conversion itself.
However, critics point to several constitutional fault lines:
Article 21 (Personal Liberty): The mandatory 60-day prior notice and post-conversion declaration amount to State surveillance over an intensely personal decision. The right to choose one's religion has been held to be a facet of personal liberty.
Article 14 (Equality): The provision that a child's religion defaults to the mother's pre-conversion religion introduces a religiously discriminatory legal standard, potentially conflicting with the principle of equality before law.
Article 15 & 16: The non-bailable nature of offences may disproportionately affect interfaith couples and minority communities, raising concerns of indirect discrimination.
Key Concerns and Implications
1. Threat to personal liberty: The 60-day notice requirement places administrative gatekeeping on what the Constitution treats as a fundamental right. A senior IAS officer noted that "personal law is increasingly becoming a matter of administrative authorities," raising concerns about creeping bureaucratisation of faith.
2. Threat to interfaith marriages: Civil rights activists fear that the non-bailable nature of offences will empower vigilante groups and hostile family members to weaponise the law against consenting adult couples, especially in inter-religious marriages.
3. Administrative overreach: There is currently no certification system for religions in India. Implementing the Bill will require creating an entirely new administrative apparatus — involving revenue authorities in matters previously governed by civil courts and personal law.
4. Lack of empirical foundation: The committee's report justifying the law has not been made public. Legislation restricting fundamental rights without transparent empirical grounding is a significant governance concern.
5. Chilling effect on minority communities: Because offences are cognisable and non-bailable, even a false complaint can result in arrest — creating a chilling effect on religious minorities and their practices.
Comparison: Anti-Conversion Laws Across States
| State | Year | Notable Feature |
|---|---|---|
| Odisha | 1967 | First anti-conversion law in India |
| Madhya Pradesh | 1968 (amended 2021) | Requires prior notice; covers marriage-linked conversions |
| Uttar Pradesh | 2021 | Targets 'love jihad'; non-bailable offences |
| Gujarat | 2003 (amended 2021) | Includes marriage as ground for scrutiny |
| Maharashtra | 2026 | 60-day notice; detailed child custody & religion provisions |
Government's Position
The state government has argued that the right to freedom of religion is not absolute and that existing laws are inadequate to address organised and fraudulent conversions. It maintains the law targets the means of conversion, not the act itself, and is necessary to preserve social harmony and public order — both of which are legitimate state interests under the Constitution.
Conclusion
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, sits at a delicate constitutional crossroads. While the State has a legitimate interest in preventing coercive or fraudulent religious conversion, the Bill's sweeping provisions risk becoming instruments of surveillance over personal faith, interfaith relationships, and minority communities. The lack of transparency around the committee report, the non-bailable nature of offences, and the administrative burdens introduced represent serious governance concerns. A law of this magnitude demands both empirical rigour and constitutional proportionality — the true test of which will rest with the judiciary. This episode also underscores the need for a nationally uniform, rights-respecting framework on religious freedom rather than a patchwork of state-level legislation.