The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, has reignited the debate between the State's power to regulate religious conversion and the individual's right to freedom of conscience. Examine the constitutional provisions at stake and analyse whether such legislation strikes a just balance between public order and personal liberty.

Question

PocketIAS · Accepted Answer

Introduction

The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026 brings into focus the tension between the State’s power to regulate conversions and the individual’s freedom of conscience, raising questions under Articles 25 and 21.

Constitutional Provisions at Stake

Article 25 (Freedom of Religion): Guarantees the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
Judicial Position: In Rev. Stanislaus (1977), the SC upheld laws prohibiting forced or fraudulent conversions, distinguishing propagation from conversion.
Article 21 (Personal Liberty): Choice of religion is integral to dignity, privacy, and autonomy (Puttaswamy, Shafin Jahan).
Article 14 (Equality): Laws must not be arbitrary or discriminatory in targeting specific groups or practices.

State’s Justification

Public Order Concerns: Preventing conversions through force, fraud, or allurement to maintain social harmony.
Protection of Vulnerable Groups: Claims of safeguarding women and marginalised communities from coercion.

Concerns Regarding Personal Liberty

Overbroad Definitions: Terms like “allurement” may include legitimate charitable or religious activities, chilling Article 25 rights.
Procedural Restrictions: Requirements such as prior notice and official scrutiny may violate privacy and autonomy under Article 21.
Impact on Interfaith Marriages: Risk of indirect interference with marital choice and personal relationships.
Potential Misuse: Scope for harassment and selective enforcement, undermining equality.

Balancing Test: Proportionality

Legitimate aim (public order) must be pursued through least restrictive means.
Blanket or intrusive provisions may fail the test of proportionality and reasonableness.

Conclusion

While regulating coercive conversions is constitutionally valid, the Bill risks tilting towards excessive state control. A just balance requires narrowly tailored provisions that protect both public order and individual autonomy.

✍️ Practice Mode

Write. Evaluate. Improve. Repeat.

The model answer is ready.

Comments (0)