What Happened
- The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly passed the Freedom of Religion Bill 2026 (also called Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam), making Maharashtra the 13th state to enact stringent anti-conversion legislation.
- The bill requires any individual intending to convert to give a 60-day prior notice to the district magistrate; the religious priest or organiser conducting the conversion must also inform authorities separately.
- Penalties range from 3-5 years imprisonment and fines of ₹50,000-₹1 lakh for general offences, rising to 7 years and ₹2 lakh when the victim is a woman, minor, or belongs to SC/ST communities, and up to 10 years and ₹5 lakh for mass conversions.
- Marriages linked to unlawful conversions may be declared null and void; children born of such marriages are to follow the mother's religion prior to conversion.
- The bill allows any third party — including relatives or unrelated individuals — to file a police complaint alleging "unlawful conversion," a provision that has drawn sharp criticism from civil society groups.
Static Topic Bridges
Article 25 and the Right to Freedom of Religion
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. The right to propagate does not, however, include the right to convert another person to one's own religion. In Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), a Supreme Court Constitution Bench ruled that Article 25 protects the right to spread religion by exposition of its tenets, but not the right to convert others by force, fraud, or allurement. The court upheld state anti-conversion laws (Madhya Pradesh and Orissa) as valid regulations to preserve public order. This precedent forms the constitutional backbone for all state-level Freedom of Religion Acts.
- Article 25 applies to all persons (not just citizens), but is subject to state regulation in the interest of public order, morality, and health.
- Article 26 protects the collective freedom of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
- The Stanislaus judgment (1977) is the primary Supreme Court ruling validating state anti-conversion laws.
- The right to propagate religion is distinct from the right to convert — the former is protected, the latter is not a fundamental right.
Connection to this news: The Maharashtra bill's prohibition on conversion through force, allurement, or fraud draws directly from the Stanislaus precedent; critics argue its 60-day notice and third-party complaint clauses go beyond what is constitutionally permissible.
State Anti-Conversion Laws: Legislative Landscape
Multiple Indian states have enacted Freedom of Religion Acts since the 1960s. Odisha passed the first such law in 1967, followed by Madhya Pradesh in 1968. States including Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, and Karnataka have enacted similar legislation. Maharashtra's 2026 bill is notable for introducing one of the strictest penalty structures, including a provision invalidating marriages associated with unlawful conversions. The laws are typically framed under the state's power to legislate on "public order" (Entry 1, State List, Seventh Schedule).
- Odisha (1967) and Madhya Pradesh (1968) were the first states with anti-conversion laws; both were upheld by the Supreme Court in 1977.
- As of 2026, Maharashtra is the 13th state to enact such legislation.
- State laws derive legislative competence from Entry 1 (Public Order) of the State List.
- Unlike earlier laws, Maharashtra's bill explicitly addresses marriages and children born of allegedly unlawful conversions.
Connection to this news: By criminalising conversion-linked marriages and extending complaint rights to third parties, Maharashtra's bill pushes the boundaries of existing anti-conversion law templates and raises new constitutional questions around privacy (Article 21) and personal liberty.
Fundamental Rights in Tension: Privacy and Religious Freedom
The Supreme Court's landmark Privacy judgment (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017) held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. Religious belief, conversion, and intimate decisions about faith fall within the protected zone of personal autonomy. Critics of anti-conversion laws argue that mandatory prior notice requirements, especially when filed with district authorities, violate this privacy guarantee. The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and other organisations have raised concerns that such laws create chilling effects on genuine, voluntary religious choices and disproportionately target minority communities.
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): 9-judge bench unanimously held privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
- Privacy encompasses decisional autonomy — including choices about faith, belief, and personal relationships.
- Third-party complaint mechanisms (allowing relatives or strangers to report "unlawful conversion") are a primary concern raised by civil liberties groups.
- Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, and critics argue anti-conversion laws are selectively applied against minority communities.
Connection to this news: The 60-day notice requirement and the broad standing given to third parties to lodge complaints are the specific provisions most challenged on privacy and discrimination grounds.
Key Facts & Data
- Maharashtra passed the bill on March 16, 2026 — the 13th state to enact such legislation.
- 60-day prior notice to district magistrate required before any conversion.
- Penalty for general offence: 3-5 years imprisonment, ₹50,000-₹1 lakh fine.
- Enhanced penalty when victim is woman, minor, or SC/ST: up to 7 years, ₹2 lakh fine.
- Mass conversion penalty: up to 10 years, ₹5 lakh fine.
- Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977): Supreme Court upheld state anti-conversion laws; held Article 25 does not include right to convert others.
- First state anti-conversion law: Odisha Freedom of Religion Act, 1967.
- Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion (subject to public order, morality, health).
- Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty — includes right to privacy (Puttaswamy judgment, 2017).