Gist of the Hindu/Indian Express: 17 sep 2025

Anti-Conversion Laws and Inter-Faith Marriages – Supreme Court Proceedings

Why in News? The Supreme Court of India recently heard a petition challenging the validity of stringent anti-religious conversion laws enacted by various states.

• Petitioner’s Argument: These laws infringe upon freedom of religion and personal liberty, especially in the context of inter-faith marriages.
• The CJI questioned, “Who will determine whether a religious conversion is deceitful or not?”
• The court will next consider the matter in six weeks, including whether to stay the implementation of these laws.

States Involved:

The following states have enacted “Freedom of Religion Acts,” which are effectively anti-conversion laws:

• Uttar Pradesh
• Himachal Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh
• Uttarakhand
• Gujarat
• Chhattisgarh
• Haryana
• Jharkhand
• Karnataka
• Rajasthan (recently introduced)

Key Issues Discussed:

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:

• Article 25: Freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion.
• Issue: These laws allegedly restrict the right to choose one’s faith and marry a person of choice, violating Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

2. Burden of Proof on the Individual:

• Under these laws, the convert must prove that the conversion was not due to force, fraud, or allurement.
• This reverses the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

3. Harsh Punishments:

• Some laws prescribe:
  • Minimum 20-year imprisonment or
  • Maximum life imprisonment for unlawful conversion.
• Bail conditions are extremely strict, similar to the UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act).

4. Empowering Third Parties:

• Recent amendments allow third parties (unrelated individuals) to file criminal complaints against inter-faith couples, leading to:
  • Misuse of law,
  • Harassment of consenting adults,
  • Increased communal tensions.

5. Chilling Effect on Religious Practices:

• Normal religious festivals, church gatherings, or social events may be targeted by mobs, creating fear among minority communities.

Legal Provisions Involved:

Supreme Court’s Observations:

• CJI’s Key Question:
  “Who will determine whether a conversion is fraudulent or genuine?”
• The court emphasized that:
  • Its role is not to create laws, only to examine their constitutionality.
  • The current batch of laws appear to restrict religious freedom rather than protect it.
• In 2023, SC refused to refer the matter to the Law Commission for drafting a uniform law on forcible conversions.

Challenges Highlighted:

Misuse of Laws:

• Laws used to harass inter-faith couples, especially in communal contexts.

Lack of Clarity:

• No uniform definition of “fraudulent conversion”.

Third-Party Interference:

• Laws allow even strangers to challenge personal decisions of consenting adults.

Reverse Burden of Proof:

• Places an unfair burden on the individual rather than the accuser.

Increasingly Stringent Provisions:

• Each new state law is modeled on earlier laws but more draconian, creating a spiral effect.

Way Forward:

1Ensure Constitutional Balance:

• Uphold Article 25 and Article 21 while preventing coercive conversions.
• Draft clear definitions of “force,” “fraud,” and “allurement.”

Judicial Guidelines:

• SC may issue guidelines to prevent misuse until Parliament or states legislate uniformly.

Strengthen Special Marriage Act:

• Simplify procedures to encourage voluntary inter-faith marriages without harassment.

Limit Third-Party Complaints:

• Restrict locus standi to directly affected parties to prevent political or communal misuse.

 Promote Awareness:

• Education and dialogue to reduce social stigma around inter-faith marriages and conversions.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s decision will significantly impact the delicate balance between religious freedom and state regulation.
While preventing forced conversions is legitimate, overly stringent and vague laws risk eroding personal liberty and fundamental rights, leading to societal division and harassment of individuals exercising their constitutional freedoms.