Maharashtra Assembly Passes Controversial Freedom of Religion Bill

The passage of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, reflects an ongoing trend among various state governments to legislate against religious conversions perceived as unlawful. This move is often justified by the interpretation of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution by the Supreme Court, which holds that the right to propagate one's religion does not include the right to convert another person through force, fraud, or inducement. The current political discourse in India also plays a significant role, with several states already having similar anti-conversion laws in place, aiming to protect vulnerable sections of society from alleged coercive conversions.

For Prelims, focus on the different tiers of penalties and the notice period.

• •General conversions: Up to 3 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs 50,000.
• •Conversions of minors, women, or Scheduled Castes/Tribes (SC/ST): Up to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh.
• •Prior Notice: A 60-day prior notice period is required for individuals intending to convert.

The Bill operates within the framework established by the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 25. While Article 25 guarantees the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion, the Supreme Court has clarified that this right does not extend to converting another person through coercion, fraud, or inducement. Anti-conversion laws, including Maharashtra's, are enacted on this premise, aiming to prevent forced conversions while upholding an individual's right to freely choose and practice their religion. The debate often centers on whether such laws genuinely protect freedom or inadvertently restrict legitimate conversions.

This bill, like similar anti-conversion laws, elicits strong arguments from both sides.

• •Arguments For: Proponents argue the law is necessary to prevent fraudulent, coercive, or induced conversions, particularly protecting vulnerable sections like women, minors, and SC/ST individuals. They emphasize maintaining public order and ensuring genuine religious freedom by curbing exploitation.
• •Arguments Against: Opponents contend that such laws often infringe upon an individual's fundamental right to choose their religion, as guaranteed by Article 25. They argue that the broad definitions of "inducement" or "coercion" can be misused to harass religious minorities and criminalize consensual interfaith marriages.

The Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad) is the upper house in states with a bicameral legislature, like Maharashtra.

• •Role: It acts as a revising or delaying body. It can scrutinize and suggest amendments to bills passed by the Legislative Assembly (Vidhan Sabha).
• •Mandatory Passage: For an ordinary bill (like this one), passage by the Legislative Council is not mandatory in the same way as the Assembly. If the Council rejects or delays a bill for more than a certain period (typically three months, plus one month if sent back), the Assembly can pass it again, and it will be deemed to have passed both houses. Money Bills have even less power for the Council.

These terms are central to anti-conversion laws but are frequently debated due to their subjective nature and potential for broad interpretation.

• •Coercion: Involves physical force, threat, or any act that deprives a person of their free will.
• •Fraud: Refers to misrepresentation or deceit about one's religion, identity, or intentions to induce conversion.
• •Inducement: Typically means offering any gift, gratification, or material benefit with the intention of converting a person. This is often the most contentious term, as it can be argued that offering charitable aid or social support could be misconstrued as inducement.
• •Marriage: The Bill specifically targets conversions made solely for the purpose of marriage, often referred to as "love jihad" by proponents, where the conversion is not genuine but a means to an end.