Any Attempt to Police Faith Will Result in High-Handedness, Why India’s New Anti-Conversion Laws Are a Leap into Chaotic Darkness
As Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh Join Over Ten States with Detailed Legal Restrictions on Religious Conversion, the Supreme Court Must Decide Whether Such Laws Violate the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Religion
Legislation passed by Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh recently on religious conversions misleadingly claims to protect freedom of religion but effectively does the opposite. Laws made by both States restrict the individual freedom of faith through requirements of prior permission from the state, public disclosure, and by shifting the burden of proof to the accused. These States now join at least ten others in having detailed legal restrictions on an individual’s right to practise and profess any religion of their choice.
The passage of these laws is not an isolated phenomenon. It is part of a coordinated push by the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government to regulate religious conversion across the country. The stated justification is the prevention of “forced” or “fraudulent” conversions. The actual effect is to subject any conversion to state scrutiny, creating a bureaucratic maze that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to freely choose their faith.
The Framework of Intrusion
Under the Maharashtra law, a person intending to convert must give 60 days’ notice and seek prior permission from a designated authority. Conversion must be registered within 25 days, or it will be treated as null and void. The authority will publish the notice locally, including at the relevant gram panchayat, inviting objections within 30 days. If objections are received, the authority may direct police to conduct an inquiry.
The Chhattisgarh legislation has similar provisions, but additionally exempts reconversion to one’s ancestral religion from its purview. Even community religious gatherings can attract provisions of the Chhattisgarh law, which replaces a 1968 law made by undivided Madhya Pradesh.
What do these provisions mean in practice? A person who wishes to convert must first notify the state. Their intention is made public, inviting objections from neighbours, relatives, and community members. Their conversion is subject to a bureaucratic approval process. Their faith is treated as invalid unless the state certifies it. This is not protection of freedom of religion; it is the assertion of state control over the most intimate of personal choices.
The Legal and Constitutional Framework
It is true that the state has a duty to protect all citizens from force and fraud. But when that principle is applied to test whether a person’s religious faith is an outcome of criminal force or fraud, it is a leap into chaotic darkness even with the best of intentions. What goes on in a person’s mind, such as matters of faith, is not accessible to another person in its entirety, and any attempt to police faith will invariably lead to high-handedness.
The Constitution of India guarantees the freedom of religion under Article 25. Every person has the right to profess, practise, and propagate their religion. This right is fundamental. It cannot be taken away by legislation that presumes to know better than the individual what their faith should be.
A batch of petitions challenging these laws has been pending before the Supreme Court of India, and the final status of the new laws in Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh will also be linked to the final determination of the constitutionality of such laws by the Court. Meanwhile, the laws will disturb social order and harmony, achieving the exact opposite of what they purportedly set out to do.
The Ideological Framework
Anti-conversion laws are premised on a lack of agency of the individual and driven by an ideological framework that links nationality to faith. In a less passionate and more reasonable framing, a person’s change of faith is no different from their decision to change their passport, political affiliation, or place of residence—all of which are legal.
The underlying assumption of these laws is that a person who converts to a different religion cannot have done so freely. They must have been coerced, induced, or defrauded. Their agency is denied. Their choice is presumed to be invalid unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof is shifted to the accused—the person who performed the conversion or the person who converted—to show that the conversion was not forced.
This is a profound violation of individual autonomy. It treats the individual as incapable of making their own choices about faith. It assumes that only the religion of birth is authentic; any deviation from it must be the result of external pressure.
The Misrepresentation of Religion
In any case, religions have no basis in verifiable scientific facts, and propagation of religion, a constitutionally guaranteed right, can easily be misrepresented as fraud. If a person is persuaded by the teachings of a faith, if they find meaning and purpose in its doctrines, if they choose to adopt it—that is not fraud. That is the free exercise of religion.
But under these laws, any act of propagation can be treated as inducement. Any conversion can be treated as fraudulent. The line between persuasion and coercion is not easy to draw, and these laws do not even attempt to draw it. Instead, they create a presumption that all conversions are suspect, and place the burden on the convert to prove otherwise.
The Political Calculus
By seeking to resolve a problem that does not exist, the Bharatiya Janata Party is serving only its own narrow political interests. There is no evidence of widespread forced conversions in India. The problem these laws purport to solve is a chimera. But the laws serve a political purpose: they appeal to a constituency that sees religious minorities as a threat, that believes in the idea of a Hindu nation, that wants to restrict the freedom of those who would leave the faith.
The laws also create a mechanism for harassment. The requirement of public notice invites objections. The requirement of police inquiry invites investigation. Even if the law is not enforced in every case, the threat of its enforcement is enough to deter conversions. The law becomes a tool of social control, not a protection of freedom.
The Social Consequences
These laws will disturb social order and harmony, achieving the exact opposite of what they purportedly set out to do. By creating suspicion around religious conversion, they will deepen divisions between communities. By making conversion a matter of public record, they will expose converts to harassment and violence. By treating conversion as presumptively fraudulent, they will delegitimise the faith of millions of Indians who have converted to Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, or other religions.
Interfaith marriages, already a source of tension in many communities, will become even more fraught. If one partner converts, the conversion will be subject to state scrutiny. If the conversion is not approved, the marriage itself may be invalidated. The law will intrude into the most intimate aspects of family life.
The Supreme Court’s Role
A batch of petitions challenging these laws has been pending before the Supreme Court. The Court has already struck down similar provisions in the past. In the Shreya Singhal case, it held that vague and overbroad restrictions on speech violate the Constitution. In the Puttaswamy case, it held that privacy includes the right to make personal decisions about faith.
The Court must now decide whether these laws can stand. It must decide whether the state can require prior permission for a change of faith. It must decide whether the burden of proof can be shifted to the accused. It must decide whether these laws violate the fundamental right to freedom of religion.
The stakes are high. If the Court upholds these laws, it will give constitutional sanction to a regime of state control over faith. If it strikes them down, it will reaffirm the fundamental principle that matters of faith are matters of individual conscience, beyond the reach of the state.
Conclusion: A Leap into Darkness
The provisions of these laws are harsh, intrusive, and authoritarian. They treat the individual as incapable of making their own choices. They presume that any deviation from the religion of birth must be the result of fraud or force. They shift the burden of proof to the accused. They invite public scrutiny and police inquiry. They are a leap into chaotic darkness.
The Supreme Court has the opportunity to halt this leap. It has the opportunity to reaffirm that the freedom of religion is a fundamental right, not a privilege to be granted by the state. It has the opportunity to declare that the state has no business policing faith.
The laws in Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh are not about protecting freedom. They are about restricting it. They are about enforcing a particular vision of society where religion is determined by birth, not by choice. They are about serving narrow political interests at the expense of individual liberty.
The Court must strike them down. The Constitution demands it. The people deserve it.
Q&A: Unpacking India’s Anti-Conversion Laws
Q1: What do the new anti-conversion laws in Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh require?
A: Under the Maharashtra law, a person intending to convert must give 60 days’ notice and seek prior permission from a designated authority. Conversion must be registered within 25 days, or it will be treated as null and void. The authority publishes the notice locally, including at the gram panchayat, inviting objections within 30 days. If objections are received, the authority may direct police to conduct an inquiry. Chhattisgarh’s law has similar provisions but exempts reconversion to one’s ancestral religion. Both laws shift the burden of proof to the accused.
Q2: How do these laws violate individual autonomy and freedom of religion?
A: The laws treat a person’s change of faith as presumptively fraudulent, denying the individual’s agency to make their own choices. They require state permission before conversion, making faith subject to bureaucratic approval. They require public disclosure, exposing converts to potential harassment. They shift the burden of proof to the accused, meaning a conversion is presumed invalid unless proven otherwise. This violates Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion.
Q3: What is the ideological premise of anti-conversion laws?
A: Anti-conversion laws are premised on a lack of agency of the individual and an ideological framework that links nationality to faith. They assume that only the religion of birth is authentic and that any deviation must result from coercion, inducement, or fraud. This denies the individual’s capacity to make independent choices about faith. In a more reasonable framing, a person’s change of faith is no different from changing their passport, political affiliation, or place of residence—all of which are legal without state permission.
Q4: What social consequences do these laws create?
A: The laws will disturb social order and harmony by creating suspicion around conversion and deepening divisions between communities. Public notice requirements expose converts to harassment and violence. Interfaith marriages become more fraught, as conversion of one partner becomes subject to state scrutiny. The laws delegitimise the faith of millions of Indians who have converted to Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, or other religions. Even community religious gatherings can attract provisions of the Chhattisgarh law.
Q5: What is the status of legal challenges to these laws?
A: A batch of petitions challenging anti-conversion laws has been pending before the Supreme Court. The final status of the new laws in Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh will be linked to the Court’s determination of the constitutionality of such laws. The Court has previously struck down vague restrictions on speech (Shreya Singhal) and affirmed that privacy includes the right to make personal decisions about faith (Puttaswamy). The Court must decide whether requiring prior state permission for conversion, shifting the burden of proof, and mandating public disclosure violate the fundamental right to freedom of religion. The author argues that if the Court upholds these laws, it would give constitutional sanction to state control over faith; if it strikes them down, it would reaffirm that matters of faith are matters of individual conscience beyond the state’s reach.
