What Happened
- The Maharashtra government introduced the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026 in the state legislative assembly on March 13, 2026, targeting forced and fraudulent religious conversions
- The Bill proposes up to 7 years' imprisonment and a ₹1 lakh fine for unlawful conversions; cases involving minors, women, persons of unsound mind, or SC/ST members attract up to 7 years' imprisonment and a ₹5 lakh fine
- Conversions on the pretext of marriage would attract 7 years' imprisonment and a ₹1 lakh fine; mass conversions and repeat offences can attract up to 10 years and a ₹7 lakh fine
- The Bill requires anyone planning a conversion ceremony to notify the "competent authority" at least 60 days in advance, with the notice published locally and objections invited within 30 days
- Maharashtra currently has no such law; it would join at least 9 other states that have enacted similar anti-conversion legislation
Static Topic Bridges
Constitutional Framework: Article 25 and Freedom of Religion
Article 25(1) of the Constitution provides that "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. The "propagate" right has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) as not including a right to "convert" others — a crucial distinction that forms the constitutional basis for anti-conversion laws.
- Article 25(1): freedom of conscience; right to profess, practise, and propagate religion
- Article 25(2): state can regulate secular activities associated with religion; provide for social welfare and reform
- Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P. (1977): Supreme Court upheld Madhya Pradesh and Odisha anti-conversion laws; distinguished propagation (sharing one's faith) from conversion (inducing others)
- The Court held that the right to propagate does not include the right to convert — forced or allured conversion harms the convert's freedom of conscience
- Article 26: every religious denomination's right to manage its own religious affairs
Connection to this news: Maharashtra's Bill rests on the Stainislaus precedent — the argument is that the Bill protects individual freedom of conscience from coercive or fraudulent conversion, not that it restricts genuinely voluntary conversion.
Anti-Conversion Laws in India: State Landscape
Anti-conversion legislation in India is a state subject (Entry 1 of State List — public order) rather than a central subject, which is why individual states have enacted these laws. Maharashtra's Bill would be the 10th such state law in India.
- States with anti-conversion laws (before Maharashtra): Odisha (Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 — oldest), Madhya Pradesh (1968), Arunachal Pradesh (1978), Gujarat (2003), Himachal Pradesh (2006), Chhattisgarh (2000), Uttarakhand (2018), Uttar Pradesh (2021), Karnataka (2022)
- UP's "Unlawful Religious Conversion Prohibition Ordinance" (2020, later Act 2021): among the most stringent — up to 10 years for converting a minor; "love jihad" provisions making conversion for marriage presumptively unlawful
- The central government has not enacted anti-conversion legislation; the Law Commission recommended a uniform central law in 1979 and 2008 reports
- Some states' laws require prior government permission for conversion — Courts have varied in upholding such requirements
Connection to this news: Maharashtra's timing — introducing the Bill while the ruling Mahayuti alliance (BJP-Sena-NCP) holds power — and its specific provision on conversions "on the pretext of marriage" mirrors provisions in UP's law that have attracted constitutional controversy.
Freedom of Religion vs State Regulation: Judicial Tests
Courts examining anti-conversion laws apply a two-stage test: (1) whether the restriction on religious activity is prescribed by law; and (2) whether it falls within the permitted limitations in Article 25(1) — public order, morality, health, or other provisions of Part III. "Coercive" or "fraudulent" conversion is generally considered to harm public order and the individual's freedom of conscience, making restrictions on such conversions constitutionally permissible.
- "Public order" in Article 25: interpreted by courts as including prevention of social tensions from coercive conversions
- The definition of "allurement" and "undue influence" in anti-conversion laws has been contested — whether non-monetary benefits (healthcare, education provided by religious organisations) constitute "allurement"
- Conversion notice requirements: courts have upheld pre-conversion notice to the state as a regulatory measure; but mandatory government permission has been struck down in some cases as excessive restriction on Article 25
- The Jahangirpuri judgment and Kerala High Court decisions have contributed to jurisprudence on what conversion regulation is constitutionally permissible
Connection to this news: The Maharashtra Bill's 60-day advance notice requirement and publication of notice inviting objections will almost certainly face constitutional challenge — the question is whether such advance notice imposes an unconstitutional chilling effect on voluntary conversion.
Key Facts & Data
- Bill introduced: March 13, 2026, Maharashtra Legislative Assembly
- General penalty: 7 years + ₹1 lakh fine
- Enhanced penalty (minors, women, SC/ST): 7 years + ₹5 lakh fine
- Conversion via marriage pretext: 7 years + ₹1 lakh fine
- Mass conversion/repeat offence: up to 10 years + ₹7 lakh fine
- Advance notice required: 60 days to competent authority
- Constitutional basis: Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P. (1977); Article 25(1)
- States with existing anti-conversion laws: 9 (before Maharashtra) — Odisha (1967) is oldest
- Maharashtra's current status: no anti-conversion law before this Bill