What Happened
- The Chhattisgarh Assembly passed the Chhattisgarh Dharm Swatantraya Vidheyak (Freedom of Religion Bill), 2026, introducing significantly stricter penalties for forced or fraudulent religious conversions.
- The most notable provision: conversions involving more than two persons — defined as "mass conversion" — carry a punishment of 10 years to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹25 lakh.
- For general offences (individual conversions by force, fraud, allurement, or coercion), the Bill prescribes 7 to 10 years' imprisonment and a ₹5 lakh fine.
- Stiffer penalties — 10 to 20 years and ₹10 lakh fine — apply when the victim is a minor, woman, person with mental disability, or belongs to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Classes.
- The Bill requires individuals wishing to convert to submit a declaration to the District Magistrate and mandates prior intimation from those conducting conversions; non-compliance is an offence.
- Reconversion to one's "ancestral religion" is explicitly excluded from the definition of "conversion" under the Bill.
- The Bill classifies all offences as cognisable (arrestable without warrant) and non-bailable.
Static Topic Bridges
Article 25 and the Constitutional Framework of Religious Freedom
Article 25(1) of the Indian 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, health, and other fundamental rights. The article also gives Parliament the power to regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political, or other secular activity associated with religious practice. Critically, Article 25 protects individual freedom of conscience — which the Supreme Court has held includes the right not to be converted against one's will. It is this dimension of Article 25 — protection from coercive conversion — that state anti-conversion laws invoke as their constitutional basis.
- Article 25 is a qualified right, subject to reasonable restrictions on grounds of public order, morality, and health.
- The right to "propagate" religion — transmitting or spreading religious tenets — has been held not to include a right to convert another person (Rev. Stanislaus case, 1977).
- Article 26 gives religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion — distinct from Article 25's individual right.
- The proviso to Article 25(2)(b) explicitly permits laws providing for social welfare and reform, including those that throw open Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Connection to this news: The Chhattisgarh Bill positions itself within the Article 25(2) framework — regulating the "secular activity" of conversion proceedings and protecting individual freedom of conscience from external coercion or inducement.
Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977): The Foundational Case
Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 677, is the Supreme Court's most authoritative ruling on the constitutionality of anti-conversion laws. The case arose from challenges to the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 — the earliest state anti-conversion statutes. The Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice A.N. Ray, upheld both laws and ruled that the fundamental right to "propagate" religion under Article 25 does not include the right to convert another person. The Court reasoned that freedom of religion is guaranteed equally to all — and a right to convert others would impinge on the freedom of conscience of potential converts.
- The Court distinguished between "propagation" (transmitting or expounding one's faith — protected) and "conversion" (changing another's religion — not a fundamental right).
- The laws were upheld as falling under Entry 1 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule: maintaining public order — since coercive or fraudulent conversions disturb communal harmony.
- The ruling remains good law and is routinely cited to validate state anti-conversion legislation.
- Entry 97 (Union List) and concurrent authority: some constitutional scholars argue that religion-regulation is a concurrent subject and that state laws like the Chhattisgarh Bill require Presidential assent under Article 254 to override any future central law.
Connection to this news: The Stanislaus ruling is the central precedent permitting state legislatures to enact anti-conversion laws penalising conversion by force, fraud, or allurement — and the Chhattisgarh Bill explicitly tracks the language upheld in that case.
India's Landscape of State Anti-Conversion Laws
Anti-conversion legislation in India is a state subject, reflecting the federal structure. Since the earliest laws (Madhya Pradesh, 1968; Orissa, 1967), at least 12 states have enacted anti-conversion legislation, with varying degrees of stringency. These laws have uniformly targeted conversions achieved through force, coercion, undue influence, allurement, fraud, or marriage. The trend since 2019 has been toward more expansive definitions, higher penalties, and mandatory prior notice/declaration requirements. Uttar Pradesh's Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, for instance, was among the strictest before the Chhattisgarh Bill, prescribing up to 10 years for mass conversions.
- States with anti-conversion laws (as of 2026): Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, and now the updated Chhattisgarh Bill.
- Haryana enacted the Haryana Prevention of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill in 2022.
- The constitutional debate focuses on: (a) whether the "public order" justification is genuinely applicable, (b) whether mandatory prior notice requirements chill the right of voluntary conversion, and (c) whether the exclusion of reconversion to "ancestral religion" violates equality under Article 14.
- Critics also argue that such laws disproportionately affect religious minorities — particularly Christians and Muslims — who are most associated with conversion activities.
Connection to this news: The Chhattisgarh Bill represents a further escalation in penalty severity (life imprisonment) and definitional scope (digital platforms included) compared to earlier state laws, placing it at the forefront of India's anti-conversion legislative landscape.
Federalism and Concurrent Legislative Authority on Religion
The Indian Constitution's Seventh Schedule divides legislative power between the Union and States. Religion-related legislation occupies a contested space. Entry 1 of List II (State List) covers public order — the basis on which state anti-conversion laws are justified. However, Entry 97 of List I (Union List) is the residual entry, and the Concurrent List (List III) includes education (Entry 25). The Supreme Court in the Stanislaus case confirmed that anti-conversion legislation falls under state power to regulate public order. A presidential reference or a future central law on conversion could, under Article 254, prevail over state laws if there is repugnancy — but no such central law exists.
- Article 254: Where a state law conflicts with a central law on a Concurrent List subject, the central law prevails; the state law may survive with Presidential assent.
- Anti-conversion laws are passed under the State List (public order), not the Concurrent List, reducing the Article 254 conflict concern.
- Presidential assent for these bills is constitutionally required because they restrict a fundamental right (Article 25) — the Governor refers such bills to the President under Article 201.
- Critics also raise Article 14 concerns over the exemption for "reconversion to ancestral religion," arguing it creates an impermissible religious classification.
Connection to this news: The Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, will require Presidential assent before coming into force, given that it directly engages with fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.
Key Facts & Data
- General conversion offence: 7-10 years imprisonment + ₹5 lakh fine.
- Conversion involving vulnerable groups (women, minors, SC/ST/OBC): 10-20 years + ₹10 lakh fine.
- Mass conversion (more than 2 persons): 10 years to life imprisonment + ₹25 lakh fine.
- All offences: cognisable (no warrant needed for arrest) and non-bailable.
- Mandatory prior declaration to District Magistrate required for those wishing to convert.
- Reconversion to ancestral religion: explicitly excluded from the definition of "conversion."
- Chhattisgarh's earlier anti-conversion law: the Chhattisgarh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 (inherited from MP) — the 2026 Bill significantly enhances penalties.
- Rev. Stanislaus case (1977): the governing Supreme Court precedent upholding state anti-conversion laws.
- At least 12 Indian states now have some form of anti-conversion legislation.