Maharashtra Government Tables Stringent Anti-Conversion Legislation
The Maharashtra government on Friday introduced a comprehensive bill with rigorous provisions aimed at preventing religious conversions carried out through coercion, fraud, or marriage involving inducement. This move aligns Maharashtra with several other BJP-governed states that have previously enacted similar 'freedom of religion' laws.
Key Provisions and Penalties
The Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, tabled in the legislative assembly for debate, establishes severe consequences for unlawful conversions. Individuals involved in conversions under the pretext of marriage face a prison term of seven years along with a fine of Rs 1 lakh. The offense is classified as non-bailable, requiring police station officers to register complaints mandatorily.
For mass conversions, the bill prescribes even harsher penalties: a seven-year jail sentence combined with a Rs 5 lakh fine. Repeat offenders in individual conversion cases may receive up to 10 years imprisonment and a Rs 5 lakh fine.
Notification and Declaration Requirements
The legislation imposes strict procedural requirements for religious conversions:
- Any person intending to convert must provide notice in a prescribed form at least 60 days in advance to the competent authority.
- Institutions organizing conversion ceremonies must also submit similar advance notice.
- Upon receipt, authorities must display these details on office notice boards and at local village panchayat offices.
- The public has 30 days to raise objections following publication.
- Within 21 days after conversion, both the converted individual and the organizing institution must submit a formal declaration to authorities.
Controversial Clauses and Legal Implications
The bill contains several contentious provisions that have drawn criticism from civil society groups:
- Children born from marriages or relationships resulting from unlawful conversions will be deemed to belong to the mother's original religion prior to the marriage or relationship.
- Relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption can file FIRs if they suspect unlawful conversion activities.
- The burden of proof that a conversion complied with legal requirements falls on the person who caused, assisted, or abetted the conversion.
- Inducements considered illegal include gifts, employment opportunities, educational benefits, promises of better lifestyle, or claims of divine healing.
Opposition and Legal Challenges
Civil society organizations have strongly opposed the legislation, arguing that such laws are being weaponized to create a climate of fear against inter-faith marriages. Dolphy D'Souza of The Bombay Catholic Sabha expressed deep disappointment, stating: "We are very disappointed that the bill was tabled without discussions with various stakeholders who are going to be affected. It takes away the right to one's conscience to follow the religion of their choice or marry a partner of their choice."
D'Souza urged opposition parties to demand the bill be referred to a select committee for thorough discussion, describing some clauses as "draconian, to say the least."
The bill justifies its provisions by claiming that "forceful" and "involuntary" religious conversions are increasing in Maharashtra. It references constitutional limitations, stating: "The right to freedom of religion guaranteed under the Constitution of India is not absolute, but is subject to public order, morality, health and to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution relating to the fundamental rights of citizens."
Broader Legal Context
Similar anti-conversion laws in other states have faced significant legal challenges. Civil rights groups including Citizens for Justice and Peace have contested these laws in high courts across Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Madhya Pradesh. Several sections of these existing laws have been stayed by courts, with states subsequently approaching the Supreme Court for resolution.
The introduction of Maharashtra's bill represents the latest development in an ongoing national debate about religious conversion regulations, balancing constitutional religious freedoms against concerns about coercive practices.
