What Happened
- The Maharashtra cabinet approved the draft of a proposed anti-conversion law on 5 March 2026, officially titled the Maharashtra Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2026 (Freedom of Religion Act, 2026).
- The law prohibits religious conversion through inducement, fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, threat, or undue influence, and also bars conversions through promises of marriage or relationships "in the nature of marriage."
- A person intending to convert must give 60 days' prior notice and seek permission from a designated authority. The conversion must be registered within 25 days, and a detailed declaration must be submitted within 21 days by both the convert and the facilitating person/organisation. Non-compliance renders the conversion null and void.
- Penalties: Up to 7 years imprisonment and fines of Rs. 1-5 lakh; aggravated cases (involving women, minors, or SC/ST persons) can attract up to 10 years and Rs. 7 lakh. Offences are non-bailable.
- The bill was subsequently passed by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on 16 March 2026. It awaits approval from the Legislative Council and the Governor. If enacted, Maharashtra would become the 13th state in India with such legislation.
Static Topic Bridges
Article 25 and Freedom of Religion: Constitutional Framework
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights. The scope of the word "propagate" and whether it includes the right to convert has been a long-standing constitutional question.
- Article 25(1): All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health, and to other provisions of Part III.
- Article 25(2): The state may make laws regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political, or other secular activity associated with religious practice, and for providing social welfare and reform.
- Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977): The Supreme Court held that the right to "propagate" religion under Article 25 means the right to transmit or spread one's religion by exposition of its tenets, but does NOT include the right to convert another person. Converting another person would impinge on the "freedom of conscience" guaranteed to all citizens.
- The Court upheld the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws of Madhya Pradesh (1968) and Odisha (1967), holding that they fell within the state's legislative competence under Entry 1 of the State List (Public Order).
- Article 26: Every religious denomination has the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, establish institutions, and own property -- subject to public order, morality, and health.
- Article 29-30: Cultural and educational rights of minorities, including the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
Connection to this news: Maharashtra's law draws its constitutional justification from the Stainislaus judgment, which established that preventing forcible conversions does not violate Article 25 since the right to propagate does not extend to the right to convert others.
Anti-Conversion Laws Across Indian States
Anti-conversion laws (officially called "Freedom of Religion Acts") exist in multiple Indian states, with varying provisions regarding notice requirements, penalties, and the treatment of re-conversion. Odisha (1967) and Madhya Pradesh (1968) were the earliest to enact such legislation.
- States with anti-conversion laws (as of 2026): Odisha (1967), Madhya Pradesh (1968, replaced by Freedom of Religion Act, 2021), Arunachal Pradesh (1978), Gujarat (2003, amended 2021), Chhattisgarh (2003), Jharkhand (2017), Uttarakhand (2018), Himachal Pradesh (2019, replaced 2022), Uttar Pradesh (2021), Haryana (2022), Karnataka (2022, repealed 2024), and now Maharashtra (2026).
- Common features: Prohibition of conversion by force, fraud, allurement, or inducement; prior notice requirement (ranging from 30 to 60 days); penalties including imprisonment and fines; enhanced punishment for conversions of women, minors, SC/ST persons.
- Key variation: Some states (Gujarat, UP, Uttarakhand, MP) include provisions specifically targeting "conversion by marriage" or "love jihad," requiring prior permission from district authorities.
- Re-conversion: Most laws treat "re-conversion" or "homecoming" to one's original religion differently -- some explicitly exempt it from notice/permission requirements; others are silent.
- Burden of proof: In many of these laws, the burden to prove that conversion was not by force, fraud, or allurement lies on the person facilitating the conversion, not on the complainant.
Connection to this news: Maharashtra's law, described as "even stricter than Gujarat and MP," represents the most recent iteration in a growing legislative trend, with its 60-day notice period, mandatory dual declarations, and non-bailable offence classification being among the most stringent provisions nationally.
Federalism and the Seventh Schedule: Legislative Competence for Anti-Conversion Laws
The constitutional basis for state legislatures to enact anti-conversion laws lies in the Seventh Schedule's State List. Since "Public Order" (Entry 1, State List) and "Relief of the disabled and unemployable" (Entry 9, State List) fall within state jurisdiction, states have legislated on religious conversions as a public order matter.
- Entry 1, State List (Schedule VII): Public Order (but not including the use of any naval, military or air force of the Union in aid of civil power).
- Entry 97, Union List: Any other matter not enumerated in List II (State List) or List III (Concurrent List) -- residuary legislative power with Centre.
- Concurrent List Entry 1: Criminal law, including all matters in the Indian Penal Code -- gives both Centre and state competence over criminal penalties.
- Article 246: Distribution of legislative powers between Union and States based on the three lists of the Seventh Schedule.
- In the Stainislaus case (1977), the Supreme Court addressed the question of legislative competence and held that anti-conversion laws are essentially laws relating to public order and thus within the state legislature's domain.
- Article 254: If a state law is repugnant to a Union law on a Concurrent List subject, the Union law prevails. However, a state law can prevail if it has received Presidential assent.
Connection to this news: Maharashtra's legislative competence to enact the Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam derives from Entry 1 of the State List (Public Order), as established by the Stainislaus precedent. The bill's criminal penalty provisions engage Concurrent List Entry 1 (Criminal Law), but this does not create a competence issue since states can legislate on criminal matters.
Key Facts & Data
- Article 25: Freedom of conscience and right to profess, practise, and propagate religion.
- Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977): Right to propagate does not include right to convert; anti-conversion laws upheld.
- Maharashtra Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2026: Approved by cabinet 5 March 2026, passed by Assembly 16 March 2026.
- Penalties: Up to 7 years + Rs. 1-5 lakh; aggravated cases (women/minors/SC/ST): up to 10 years + Rs. 7 lakh. Non-bailable.
- Notice period: 60 days prior to conversion; registration within 25 days; declaration within 21 days.
- Earliest anti-conversion laws: Odisha (1967), Madhya Pradesh (1968).
- Maharashtra would be the 13th state with such legislation.
- Legislative competence: Entry 1, State List (Public Order) per the Stainislaus judgment.
- Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003 (amended 2021); UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
- Karnataka Anti-Conversion Act, 2022: Enacted but repealed in 2024 after change in government.