What Happened
- Maharashtra's cabinet cleared the draft Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2026 (Freedom of Religion Bill), proposing to prohibit unlawful religious conversions achieved through force, fraud, or allurement.
- The bill mandates a 60-day prior notice to a designated authority before any conversion can take place, and requires registration of the conversion within 25 days of completion; failure to register renders the conversion null and void.
- Penalties for unlawful conversion include imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine of up to Rs 5 lakh; offences under the bill are non-bailable.
- Family members can lodge complaints if they suspect a conversion occurred through coercion; police must register an FIR on such complaints.
- The bill explicitly states that freedom of religion does not include the right to convert by force, fraud, or allurement but includes the right to be protected from such conversions.
Static Topic Bridges
Freedom of Religion — Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution
Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution guarantee freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion. Article 25(1) states 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. However, the right to propagate does not include the right to convert by improper means. The Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) upheld state anti-conversion laws, holding that the right to propagate does not confer the right to convert another person, as such conversion would impinge on freedom of conscience of the target person.
- Article 25(2)(b) allows states to make laws providing for social welfare and reform, including Hindu religious institutions.
- Rev. Stainislaus v. State of MP (1977): SC upheld Madhya Pradesh and Orissa anti-conversion laws; ruled that "propagate" does not mean "convert."
- The court distinguished between lawful persuasion (permissible) and coercive, fraudulent, or inducement-based conversion (impermissible).
- Entry 1 of List II (State List) gives states authority to legislate on public order; anti-conversion laws have been upheld under this entry.
Connection to this news: Maharashtra's bill follows the Stainislaus precedent by targeting the means of conversion (force/fraud/allurement) rather than conversion per se, a distinction that has been judicially validated.
Anti-Conversion Laws in Other States — Comparative Framework
At least nine Indian states — Odisha (1967), Madhya Pradesh (1968), Arunachal Pradesh (1978), Chhattisgarh (2000), Gujarat (2003), Himachal Pradesh (2006), Rajasthan (2008), Jharkhand (2017), and Uttarakhand (2018) — have enacted freedom of religion laws that require prior permission or notice for conversions. The Uttarakhand Dharma Swatantrya Act, 2022 was one of the more recent and stringent versions, requiring prior intimation to the district administration and providing heavy penalties. Several state anti-conversion laws contain provisions around marriage-based conversion (colloquially referred to as "love jihad" provisions), which have been struck down or stayed by courts in some instances.
- Odisha Freedom of Religion Act, 1967: the first such law in India; penalties for conversion by force/fraud.
- Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003: requires prior permission from the collector before any conversion; amended in 2021 to add marriage-related provisions.
- Allahabad HC (2021) struck down UP's prior permission requirement for voluntary conversions as unconstitutional.
- Maharashtra's bill is modelled closely on the Uttarakhand 2022 framework but is adapted for a more urbanised, industrialised state context.
Connection to this news: Maharashtra's Dharma Swatantrya Bill joins a cluster of state-level laws that regulate conversion, making it part of a wider legislative trend whose constitutionality has been repeatedly contested in courts.
Non-Bailable Offences and Burden of Proof
The Code of Criminal Procedure (now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, BNSS, 2023) classifies offences as bailable or non-bailable. A non-bailable offence means the police cannot grant bail; only a court can. Making the offence non-bailable is a significant design choice that increases the risk of detention before trial. Critics argue that because the bill allows family members to file complaints — even for voluntary conversions — the non-bailable nature can be misused to detain individuals based on family objection rather than actual coercion. The burden of proof issue is also contested: conversion laws typically place a de facto burden on the convert to prove voluntariness.
- Section 2 of BNSS defines bailable and non-bailable offences based on Schedule 1 of the earlier CrPC framework.
- In anti-conversion law cases, courts have noted the difficulty of proving "allurement" or "inducement," which are subjective and can encompass normal religious evangelism.
- The 60-day notice requirement before conversion allows for pre-emptive intervention by family members or authorities.
- Mandatory FIR registration on complaint (without police discretion) means any allegation triggers a criminal process.
Connection to this news: The combination of mandatory FIR registration, non-bailable offence status, and family-member complaint rights in the Maharashtra bill creates a procedural architecture that will likely be legally challenged on grounds of over-criminalisation and potential misuse.
Key Facts & Data
- Bill name: Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2026 (Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill).
- Cabinet clearance: March 2026; still to be passed by the legislature.
- Penalties: Up to 7 years imprisonment and Rs 5 lakh fine for unlawful conversion.
- Notice requirement: 60 days prior notice to designated authority.
- Registration requirement: Within 25 days post-conversion; non-registration renders conversion null and void.
- Offence classification: Non-bailable.
- Key precedent: Rev. Stainislaus v. State of MP (1977) — SC upheld state anti-conversion laws.
- Constitutional basis: Article 25 (freedom of religion), State List Entry 1 (public order).
- States with similar laws: Odisha (1967), MP (1968), Gujarat (2003), Uttarakhand (2018), among others.