What Happened
- The Maharashtra government tabled the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, in the state legislative assembly, proposing stringent penalties for forced or fraudulent religious conversions.
- For basic unlawful conversion: up to seven years' imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh.
- For aggravated offences (involving minors, women, mentally unsound persons, or members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes): up to seven years' imprisonment and a fine of ₹5 lakh.
- For repeat offenders: up to ten years' imprisonment and a fine of up to ₹7 lakh.
- The bill prohibits conversions carried out through inducement, fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, threat, undue influence, or promises of marriage or relationships "in the nature of marriage."
- The bill was expected to be taken up for debate in the assembly on March 16, 2026, with the Mahayuti government (BJP-Shiv Sena-NCP alliance) likely to move it for passage; opposition parties and civil society groups raised objections.
Static Topic Bridges
Article 25 and the Freedom of Religion — Propagation vs. Conversion
Article 25(1) of the Constitution guarantees to all persons, equally, freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health, and the other provisions of Part III. The word "propagate" has been the central interpretive battleground in anti-conversion law cases.
- Article 25(1): "Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion."
- Article 25(2): The State may regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice; may provide for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections.
- The right to "propagate" under Article 25(1) is a right of every person — including those who might be converted to. The Constitution thus protects both the propagator's right and the potential convert's freedom of conscience.
- Importantly, Article 25(1) guarantees freedom of conscience to every citizen and not merely to followers of one particular religion — a point the Supreme Court used to justify anti-conversion laws that protect the freedom of conscience of the person being targeted for conversion.
Connection to this news: The Maharashtra bill directly operationalises the constitutional distinction between lawful propagation (permitted) and coercive or fraudulent conversion (not constitutionally protected) — the exact line drawn by the Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977).
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) — The Foundational Precedent
In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (1977 SCR (2) 611), the Supreme Court of India was called upon to decide whether the fundamental right to "propagate" religion under Article 25(1) includes the right to convert another person to one's own religion. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 — two of the earliest state anti-conversion laws.
- The Court held: "What is freedom for one is freedom for the other in equal measure and there can, therefore, be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one's own religion."
- Ratio decidendi: The right to "propagate" means the right to transmit or spread religious ideas by exposition of tenets and persuasion — it does not extend to converting another person, as that would infringe the convert's own freedom of conscience.
- The Court held that forcible or fraudulently induced conversions impinge on "public order" — a permitted ground for restricting Article 25(1) rights.
- The judgment legitimised state legislation that prohibits conversion by force, fraud, or allurement, and has been the cornerstone of all subsequent judicial scrutiny of anti-conversion laws.
- Rev. Stainislaus remains the leading authority on this question; no subsequent Constitution Bench judgment has overruled it.
Connection to this news: The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, is constitutionally grounded in the Rev. Stainislaus framework — its prohibition of conversions through "inducement, fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, threat, undue influence, or marriage allurement" tracks exactly the categories of prohibited conduct identified in that judgment.
State Anti-Conversion Laws Across India — Legislative Landscape
India has a patchwork of state-level Freedom of Religion Acts, enacted under Entry 1 (public order) of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. These laws predate the Maharashtra bill by decades, and their constitutional validity has been upheld in the higher courts multiple times.
- Odisha Freedom of Religion Act, 1967: The first state anti-conversion law; challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus (1977).
- Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968: Upheld simultaneously in Rev. Stainislaus.
- States with currently operative anti-conversion laws (as of early 2026): Uttar Pradesh (Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020, later codified as Act), Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Karnataka, and Jharkhand.
- Several of these laws specifically criminalise conversion "for the purpose of marriage" — often termed "love jihad" provisions — which have faced additional constitutional challenges on grounds of Article 21 (right to choose a partner) and Article 25.
- The Supreme Court has issued notices to states on petitions challenging various anti-conversion laws and the constitutional questions remain partially sub-judice as of 2026.
- Legislative competence: The Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus held that "conversion" with a public order nexus falls under Entry 1, List II — within state legislative competence. Conversely, a law targeting purely private religious choices without any element of fraud/coercion might fall outside this entry.
Connection to this news: Maharashtra joins a growing list of states with anti-conversion legislation; the bill's provisions on marriage-related conversions and enhanced penalties for conversions targeting SC/ST communities follow the recent legislative trend in BJP-governed states.
Seventh Schedule — Division of Legislative Powers
The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution divides legislative competence between Parliament and state legislatures through three lists: List I (Union List), List II (State List), and List III (Concurrent List).
- Entry 1, List II (State List): "Public order (but not including the use of naval, military or air forces or any other armed force of the Union or of any other force maintained by the Central Government in aid of the civil power)." — The basis for state anti-conversion laws.
- Entry 97, List I: Residuary powers vest in Parliament for subjects not covered by any of the three lists.
- Entry 9, List III (Concurrent List): "Criminal law, including all matters included in the Indian Penal Code at the commencement of this Constitution." — States can make criminal laws (subject to repugnancy with central law under Article 254); anti-conversion penal provisions derive authority from both Entry 1, List II and Entry 9, List III.
- Article 254: If a state law on a concurrent subject is repugnant to a central law, the central law prevails; but state law can be saved by Presidential assent under Article 254(2).
Connection to this news: The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill's criminal penalties place it squarely in the concurrent domain (criminal law) while its public order basis rests on the state list — it requires Governor's assent and, depending on central law interaction, potentially Presidential assent under Article 254(2).
Key Facts & Data
- Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026: Tabled in Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, March 13, 2026
- Penalties: Up to 7 years + ₹1 lakh (basic); 7 years + ₹5 lakh (aggravated — minors, women, SC/ST); 10 years + ₹7 lakh (repeat offenders)
- Prohibited modes: inducement, fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, threat, undue influence, marriage/relationship promises
- Article 25(1): Guarantees freedom to profess, practise, and propagate religion — subject to public order, morality, health
- Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977): Right to propagate does not include right to convert; upheld Madhya Pradesh and Odisha anti-conversion laws
- Odisha Freedom of Religion Act, 1967: First state anti-conversion law
- Legislative basis: Entry 1 (Public Order), List II (State List), Seventh Schedule
- States with operative anti-conversion laws as of 2026: Odisha, MP, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, UP, Karnataka, Jharkhand — now joined by Maharashtra
- Mahayuti coalition (BJP + Shiv Sena + NCP) holds majority in Maharashtra assembly