Maharashtra Government Introduces Controversial Anti-Conversion Bill in State Assembly

The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, proposes specific numerical provisions to curb unlawful religious conversions.

• •For conversions by 'allurement, force, fraud, or misrepresentation': Imprisonment from 1 to 5 years and a fine of Rs 50,000.
• •If the victim is a minor, woman, or belongs to Scheduled Castes/Tribes: Imprisonment from 3 to 10 years and a fine of Rs 1 lakh.
• •Prior declaration to the District Magistrate is mandatory, with a period of 60 days.

Maharashtra's proposed Dharma Swatantrya Bill, 2026, shares similarities with other state anti-conversion laws but introduces a unique provision concerning children born from marriages deemed for 'unlawful conversions'.

• •Commonality: Like other states (e.g., UP, MP, Gujarat), it aims to curb conversions by 'allurement, force, fraud, or misrepresentation' and declares marriages solemnised for 'unlawful conversions' as null and void. Prior declaration to the District Magistrate is also a common feature.
• •Unique Aspect: A distinct feature of the Maharashtra bill, not explicitly mentioned in many similar state laws, is that a child born from such a marriage will be deemed to belong to the religion followed by the parent who did not convert.

Anti-conversion laws, including Maharashtra's, attempt to balance the fundamental right to religious freedom (Article 25) with the state's power to maintain public order, morality, and health. The core idea is to protect individuals from forced conversions, but they often face constitutional scrutiny.

• •State's Argument: Proponents argue these laws protect vulnerable individuals from conversions induced by force, fraud, or allurement, thereby upholding the 'public order' aspect of Article 25. They assert that the right to 'propagate' one's religion does not include the right to convert others by illicit means.
• •Constitutional Challenges: Critics argue these laws can infringe upon an individual's right to choose their religion, marry a person of their choice (part of Article 21's right to life and liberty), and the right to privacy. The mandatory prior declaration to the District Magistrate is often challenged as an invasion of privacy and a deterrent to genuine conversions.
• •Supreme Court's Stance: The Supreme Court has generally upheld the right to propagate one's religion but has also stated that there is no fundamental right to convert another person. However, the validity of specific provisions in various state laws remains a subject of ongoing legal debate.

There has been a significant trend in recent years of Indian states enacting anti-conversion laws. Over nine states, including Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, UP, Gujarat, MP, Haryana, Karnataka, and Rajasthan, have passed such legislation, with Maharashtra now joining this list.

• •Socio-Political Factors: This surge is largely driven by concerns over alleged 'love jihad' and forced conversions, particularly involving Hindu women. Political parties often campaign on these issues, citing protection of cultural and religious identity.
• •Legal Precedent: While Article 25 guarantees religious freedom, its subjection to public order, morality, and health provides a constitutional basis for states to regulate conversions deemed unlawful.
• •Uniformity vs. Diversity: The increasing number of state-specific laws highlights a fragmented legal landscape, often leading to calls for a uniform central law or further judicial clarity on the scope of such state legislations.

Critically examining anti-conversion laws requires presenting a balanced perspective, highlighting both their intended benefits and potential drawbacks.

• •Arguments For:
• •Protection of Vulnerable: Aims to protect individuals, especially women, minors, and those from SC/ST communities, from conversions induced by coercion, fraud, or allurement.
• •Maintenance of Public Order: Prevents social unrest and communal tensions that can arise from allegations of forced conversions.
• •Upholding Religious Freedom: Ensures that genuine religious conversions are distinguished from those based on illicit means, thereby protecting the spirit of Article 25.
• •Arguments Against:
• •Infringement on Rights: Can violate fundamental rights like freedom of religion (Article 25), right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), and right to privacy.
• •Misuse and Harassment: Potential for misuse against interfaith couples or religious minorities, leading to harassment and social ostracization.
• •Burden of Proof: Often places the burden of proving the voluntariness of conversion on the individual, which can be challenging and intrusive.
• •State Overreach: Critics argue it represents excessive state intervention in personal matters of faith and choice.

The introduction of the Dharma Swatantrya Bill, 2026, by the Maharashtra government aligns with a broader national trend and likely stems from specific socio-political considerations within the state.

• •Political Alignment: The current Maharashtra government, like those in other states that have passed similar laws (e.g., UP, MP, Gujarat), often belongs to political ideologies that advocate for such legislation to address perceived threats of forced conversions or 'love jihad'.
• •Public Demand/Perception: There might be a perceived public demand or political narrative within the state to curb what is presented as 'unlawful conversions,' particularly those involving interfaith marriages.
• •Strengthening Existing Framework: While existing laws might address some aspects, this bill aims to create a more comprehensive and stringent legal framework specific to Maharashtra, including unique provisions like the child's religion in nullified marriages.
• •Electoral Considerations: Introducing such a bill can also be a strategic move to consolidate a particular voter base or fulfill electoral promises related to cultural and religious protection.