20 Mar 2026·Source: The Hindu

6 min

Polity & GovernanceSocial IssuesNEWS

Chhattisgarh Passes Controversial Anti-Conversion Bill Amid Opposition Boycott

UPSC-PrelimsUPSC-Mains●

Quick Revision

The Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly passed the Chhattisgarh Dharm Swatantra Vidheyak (Freedom of Religion Bill), 2026.

The new Bill replaces a 1968 law from undivided Madhya Pradesh.

Any conversion violating the Bill's provisions is deemed 'illegal'.

The Bill introduces stricter penalties, including life imprisonment and fines up to ₹25 lakh.

The definition of 'allurements' has been broadened to include monetary benefits, gifts, employment, free education, medical facilities, promises of a better lifestyle, or marriage.

'Coercion' includes psychological pressure, physical force, or threats, including social boycott.

The Bill proposes publishing details of proposed religious conversions on an official website.

Special courts are proposed to hear cases registered under the law.

Mass conversions (two or more persons) may attract imprisonment of not less than 10 years, extendable to life imprisonment, and fines of ₹25 lakh or more.

10.

Repeat offenders may face life imprisonment.

Key Dates

2026: Chhattisgarh Dharm Swatantra Vidheyak (Freedom of Religion Bill) passed.1968: Previous law from undivided Madhya Pradesh that is being replaced.

Key Numbers

₹25 lakh: Maximum fine for violations.10 years: Minimum imprisonment for mass conversions.2: Number of persons for a conversion to be considered 'mass conversion'.

Visual Insights

Chhattisgarh Anti-Conversion Bill, 2026: Key Provisions at a Glance

This dashboard highlights the critical numerical and punitive aspects of the newly passed Chhattisgarh Dharm Swatantra Vidheyak, 2026, which introduces stricter regulations and penalties for religious conversions.

New Bill Year: 2026
Replaced Old Law Year: 1968
Maximum Penalty: Life Imprisonment
Maximum Fine: ₹25 Lakh

Evolution of Anti-Conversion Legislation in Chhattisgarh

This timeline illustrates the legislative journey of anti-conversion laws in Chhattisgarh, from its initial enactment to the recent, more stringent bill.

Anti-conversion laws in India have a complex history, often debated in the context of freedom of religion and public order. Many states have enacted such laws, with varying degrees of stringency. Chhattisgarh's 2026 bill represents a significant tightening of its existing legal framework, reflecting ongoing national discussions and judicial interpretations on the matter.

1968Chhattisgarh Dharm Swatantra Adhiniyam (Freedom of Religion Act) enacted. This was the foundational law regulating religious conversions in the region.
2026Chhattisgarh Dharm Swatantra Vidheyak (Freedom of Religion Bill) passed by the Legislative Assembly, replacing the 1968 law. Introduces stricter penalties, broader definition of 'allurements', special courts, and public disclosure of conversion details.

Mains & Interview Focus

Don't miss it!

The passage of the Chhattisgarh Dharm Swatantra Vidheyak, 2026, replacing the 1968 law, marks a significant legislative shift in how the state intends to regulate religious conversions. This move reflects a broader trend among Indian states to enact more stringent anti-conversion statutes, often driven by concerns over alleged fraudulent or coercive proselytization. The expanded definition of 'allurements' to include monetary benefits, employment, and even promises of a better lifestyle, along with stricter penalties, including life imprisonment and fines up to ₹25 lakh, raises substantial questions about individual autonomy and religious freedom.

Such legislation, while ostensibly aimed at protecting vulnerable populations from exploitation, frequently faces criticism for its potential to be misused. The broad scope of 'allurements' could criminalize acts of charity or social assistance, which are integral to many religious organizations' work. Moreover, the requirement for public disclosure of conversion intentions, as proposed by the Bill, can expose individuals to social ostracization and harassment, thereby chilling the exercise of their constitutional right to choose and practice a religion.

Historically, the Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) affirmed that the right to 'propagate' religion under Article 25 does not include the right to convert another person by force or fraud. However, the current Bill's provisions, particularly those related to 'mass conversions' attracting life imprisonment for two or more persons, push the boundaries of this interpretation. This could disproportionately affect communities engaged in collective religious practices or those who convert together due to shared convictions.

The boycott by the opposition during the Bill's passage underscores the contentious nature of these laws. Critics argue that such legislation often targets specific religious minorities and can be weaponized to settle personal vendettas or suppress religious expression. A robust legal framework must balance the state's legitimate interest in preventing forced conversions with the fundamental right of individuals to choose their faith without undue interference or fear of punitive action. The Chhattisgarh government must ensure that enforcement mechanisms are transparent and do not become tools for harassment.

Exam Angles

Constitutional Law: Fundamental Rights (Article 25, 21), State's legislative competence.

Polity & Governance: Role of State Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary in law-making and implementation.

Social Justice: Impact on religious minorities, vulnerable sections, and inter-faith relations.

Legal Issues: Burden of proof, definition of 'allurement', judicial review of state laws.

View Detailed Summary

Summary

Chhattisgarh has passed a new law to control religious conversions, making it harder for people to change their religion. The law introduces very strict punishments, including life imprisonment, for conversions done through force, fraud, or even by offering benefits like money or jobs. Critics worry it might limit people's freedom to choose their own faith.

The Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly, on [Date not specified in source], passed the Chhattisgarh Dharm Swatantra Vidheyak (Freedom of Religion Bill), 2026, amidst a boycott by the Opposition. This new legislation is set to replace the existing 1968 law concerning religious conversions in the state. The Bill introduces stringent regulations for religious conversions, explicitly deeming any conversion that violates its provisions as 'illegal'.

Key provisions of the 2026 Bill include significantly stricter penalties for unlawful conversions. These penalties now extend to life imprisonment and fines reaching up to ₹25 lakh. A notable change is the broadened definition of 'allurements', which previously might have been interpreted narrowly. Under the new Bill, 'allurements' now explicitly encompass monetary benefits, promises of employment, and assurances of a better lifestyle, making it easier to prosecute cases where such incentives are involved in conversions.

Furthermore, the Bill proposes the establishment of special courts to handle cases related to religious conversions, aiming for expedited judicial processes. It also mandates public disclosure of conversion details, a provision that has drawn criticism for potentially infringing on privacy. The Opposition boycotted the assembly proceedings during the Bill's passage, calling for a comprehensive review of its provisions, citing concerns over its potential misuse and impact on fundamental rights.

This development is significant for India's federal structure and the balance between state legislative powers and fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution. It is highly relevant for the UPSC Civil Services Examination, falling under Polity & Governance (GS-II) and Social Justice (GS-I) due to its implications for religious freedom and societal harmony.

Background

भारत के संविधान का अनुच्छेद 25 सभी व्यक्तियों को अंतरात्मा की स्वतंत्रता और धर्म को मानने, आचरण करने और प्रचार करने के अधिकार की गारंटी देता है, जो सार्वजनिक व्यवस्था, नैतिकता और स्वास्थ्य के अधीन है। यह अधिकार व्यक्तियों को अपनी पसंद का धर्म चुनने और उसका पालन करने की स्वतंत्रता सुनिश्चित करता है। हालांकि, इस अधिकार में जबरन धर्मांतरण का अधिकार शामिल नहीं है, और राज्य सरकारों ने अक्सर इस आधार पर धर्मांतरण विरोधी कानून बनाए हैं कि जबरन धर्मांतरण सार्वजनिक व्यवस्था को बाधित कर सकता है या व्यक्तियों के अधिकारों का उल्लंघन कर सकता है। भारत में धर्मांतरण विरोधी कानूनों का इतिहास 1960 के दशक से मिलता है, जब ओडिशा और मध्य प्रदेश जैसे राज्यों ने ऐसे कानून बनाए थे। इन कानूनों का प्राथमिक उद्देश्य धोखाधड़ी, जबरदस्ती या प्रलोभन के माध्यम से किए गए धर्मांतरण को रोकना था। छत्तीसगढ़, जो पहले मध्य प्रदेश का हिस्सा था, ने भी 1968 में अपना धर्म स्वातंत्र्य कानून लागू किया था, जिसका उद्देश्य धार्मिक धर्मांतरण को विनियमित करना और यह सुनिश्चित करना था कि वे स्वतंत्र इच्छा से हों। ये कानून अक्सर 'जबरदस्ती', 'धोखाधड़ी' और 'प्रलोभन' जैसे शब्दों को परिभाषित करते हैं, और धर्मांतरण करने वाले या धर्मांतरण कराने वाले व्यक्ति के लिए कुछ प्रक्रियाओं का पालन करना अनिवार्य करते हैं। इन कानूनों की संवैधानिक वैधता को अक्सर सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में चुनौती दी गई है, जिसने 'प्रचार' के अधिकार को 'धर्मांतरण' के अधिकार से अलग किया है, यह पुष्टि करते हुए कि किसी को भी जबरन धर्मांतरित करने का कोई मौलिक अधिकार नहीं है।

Latest Developments

हाल के वर्षों में, कई भारतीय राज्यों ने धर्मांतरण विरोधी कानूनों को या तो अधिनियमित किया है या मौजूदा कानूनों में संशोधन किया है, जिससे इस मुद्दे पर राष्ट्रीय बहस तेज हो गई है। उत्तर प्रदेश, मध्य प्रदेश, गुजरात और कर्नाटक जैसे राज्यों ने ऐसे कानून पेश किए हैं जो विवाह के लिए धर्मांतरण को भी विनियमित करते हैं, अक्सर यह मानते हुए कि ऐसा धर्मांतरण 'लव जिहाद' का हिस्सा है। इन कानूनों में अक्सर धर्मांतरण से पहले जिला मजिस्ट्रेट को सूचित करने या अनुमति लेने जैसे प्रावधान शामिल होते हैं, और उल्लंघन के लिए कठोर दंड निर्धारित करते हैं। इन कानूनों के कई प्रावधानों को विभिन्न उच्च न्यायालयों और सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में चुनौती दी गई है। याचिकाकर्ताओं ने तर्क दिया है कि ये कानून निजता का अधिकार, जीवन का अधिकार और धर्म की स्वतंत्रता जैसे मौलिक अधिकारों का उल्लंघन करते हैं। विशेष रूप से, 'प्रलोभन' की व्यापक परिभाषा और धर्मांतरण करने वाले व्यक्ति पर सबूत का बोझ डालने जैसे प्रावधानों की अक्सर आलोचना की जाती है, क्योंकि वे व्यक्तियों को अपनी पसंद के धर्म का पालन करने से रोक सकते हैं और उत्पीड़न का कारण बन सकते हैं। न्यायिक समीक्षा के बावजूद, कई राज्य इन कानूनों को लागू करने के लिए आगे बढ़ रहे हैं, यह तर्क देते हुए कि वे कमजोर वर्गों की रक्षा और सार्वजनिक व्यवस्था बनाए रखने के लिए आवश्यक हैं। इस मुद्दे पर केंद्र सरकार का रुख आम तौर पर राज्यों को अपने स्वयं के कानून बनाने की अनुमति देने का रहा है, जबकि विभिन्न अदालतों में इन कानूनों की संवैधानिक वैधता पर बहस जारी है।

Practice Questions (MCQs)

1. Consider the following statements regarding the Chhattisgarh Dharm Swatantra Vidheyak (Freedom of Religion Bill), 2026: 1. It replaces a 1968 law and introduces stricter penalties, including life imprisonment and fines up to ₹25 lakh. 2. The Bill broadens the definition of 'allurements' to include only monetary benefits and employment. 3. It mandates public disclosure of conversion details and proposes special courts for related cases. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A.1 only
B.1 and 3 only
C.2 and 3 only
D.1, 2 and 3

Show Answer

Answer: B

Statement 1 is CORRECT: The Chhattisgarh Dharm Swatantra Vidheyak, 2026, replaces a 1968 law and introduces stricter penalties, including life imprisonment and fines up to ₹25 lakh, as explicitly mentioned in the summary. Statement 2 is INCORRECT: The Bill broadens the definition of 'allurements' to include monetary benefits, employment, AND promises of a better lifestyle, not just monetary benefits and employment. The word 'only' makes this statement incorrect. Statement 3 is CORRECT: The Bill proposes special courts and mandates public disclosure of conversion details, as stated in the summary. Therefore, statements 1 and 3 are correct.

2. Which of the following statements correctly describes the constitutional position regarding the 'Right to Freedom of Religion' in India? 1. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the right to propagate one's religion, which includes the right to convert another person to one's own religion. 2. The Supreme Court has held that the right to freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion are subject to public order, morality, and health. 3. State legislatures are competent to enact laws regulating religious conversions under the 'public order' entry of the State List. Select the correct answer using the code given below:

A.1 and 2 only
B.2 and 3 only
C.1 and 3 only
D.1, 2 and 3

Show Answer

Answer: B

Statement 1 is INCORRECT: While Article 25 guarantees the right to propagate one's religion, the Supreme Court, in the Stanislause case (1977), clarified that this right does not include the right to convert another person to one's own religion. It only means the right to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets. Statement 2 is CORRECT: Article 25 itself states that the right to freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion are subject to public order, morality, and health. This has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court. Statement 3 is CORRECT: State legislatures derive their power to enact anti-conversion laws from Entry 1 of the State List (List II) of the Seventh Schedule, which deals with 'Public Order'. This allows states to legislate on matters affecting public order, including regulating religious conversions to prevent disturbances. Therefore, statements 2 and 3 are correct.

3. With reference to anti-conversion laws in India, consider the following statements: 1. Most state anti-conversion laws place the burden of proof on the person who has converted. 2. The term 'allurement' in these laws has been consistently defined across all states to include only material benefits. 3. The Opposition's boycott of the Chhattisgarh Bill's passage indicates a consensus among political parties regarding the need for such laws. Which of the statements given above is/are incorrect?

A.1 and 2 only
B.2 and 3 only
C.1 and 3 only
D.1, 2 and 3

Show Answer

Answer: D

Statement 1 is INCORRECT: Most anti-conversion laws, including recent ones, typically place the burden of proof on the person who facilitates the conversion, or the religious leader, to prove that the conversion was not by force, fraud, or allurement, rather than on the person who has converted. This is a common point of contention and criticism. Statement 2 is INCORRECT: The definition of 'allurement' varies and has been broadened in many recent laws, including the Chhattisgarh Bill, to include not just material benefits but also promises of employment, better lifestyle, divine displeasure, etc. The claim that it's 'consistently defined' and 'only material benefits' is false. Statement 3 is INCORRECT: The Opposition's boycott explicitly indicates a LACK of consensus and a call for review, directly contradicting the idea of 'consensus among political parties regarding the need for such laws'. Therefore, all three statements are incorrect.