Anti-Conversion Laws Undermine Freedom of Faith, Threaten Social Harmony

The recent enactment of anti-conversion laws in Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh marks a significant policy shift, intensifying state control over individual religious choices. These legislations, mirroring those in at least 10 other states, fundamentally alter the landscape of religious freedom guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. The core issue lies in the state's expanded role from preventing coercive conversions to actively policing faith, a move that risks chilling legitimate religious practice and propagation.

Such laws introduce onerous procedural requirements, including mandatory prior notice to district authorities and public disclosure of conversion intentions. For instance, the Maharashtra law demands 60 days' notice and registration within 25 days, failing which the conversion is deemed null and void. These provisions not only infringe upon privacy but also create avenues for harassment and social ostracization, particularly for individuals from minority communities or those seeking interfaith marriages. The exemption for reconversion to "ancestral religion" in the Chhattisgarh law further exposes the underlying ideological bias, favoring one form of religious identity over another.

A critical legal concern is the shifting of the burden of proof onto the accused to demonstrate that a conversion was not by force, fraud, or inducement. This reverses a fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence, where the prosecution typically bears the burden. The Supreme Court, currently reviewing similar laws, faces the complex task of balancing the state's legitimate interest in preventing exploitation with the constitutional imperative to protect individual autonomy and religious liberty. Its pronouncements will be pivotal in defining the boundaries of state intervention in matters of faith.

Historically, India's secular fabric has been characterized by "principled distance" from religion, allowing the state to intervene for social reform while respecting religious diversity. These new laws, however, appear to move towards a more interventionist and prescriptive model, potentially eroding the pluralistic ethos. The focus should remain on robust enforcement against genuine cases of coercion or fraud, rather than creating a system that implicitly distrusts individual agency and criminalizes sincere changes of faith. A more effective approach would strengthen legal aid and awareness, empowering individuals rather than restricting their choices.