Anti-Conversion Laws in India

Syllabus: Secularism

Context: Arunachal Pradesh appointed retired judge Katakey to head a committee examining draft rules for 1978 Freedom of Religion Act, an anti-conversion law facing Christian community opposition.

Anti-Conversion Laws

• Meaning and Core Features
  • Anti-conversion laws regulate religious conversions by prohibiting forced, fraudulent or incentivised conversions.
  • Known as Freedom of Religion Acts, ensuring conversions occur through personal conviction.
  • Prohibit conversion through force, fraud, allurement, undue influence or inducement.
  • Some laws mandate prior intimation to district authorities before conversion.
  • Provide punitive measures, including fines and imprisonment for violations.
• Need for Anti-Conversion Laws
  • Aim to prevent coercive or deceitful conversions, especially in socially fragile regions.
  • Reports of forced conversions highlight vulnerability, e.g., 427 cases in Uttar Pradesh (2021–23).
  • Ensure balance under Article 25, allowing free profession of religion with reasonable restrictions.
  • Address misuse through promises of financial benefits, false marriages or material incentives.
  • Respond to demographic concerns and growing polarisation, misinformation and propaganda.
  • Necessary for social harmony by reducing tensions arising from alleged forced conversions.
  • Supreme Court noted forced conversions as a “serious issue”, though voluntary conversions remain protected.
• Status of Anti-Conversion Laws in India
  • Originates from pre-independence princely states’ laws (1930s–40s) against missionary influence.
  • Early national attempts (e.g., 1954 Bill) failed due to lack of support.
  • No central law, as law and order is a State subject.
  • First state law: Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967.
  • States with laws: Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, among others.
• Issues and Challenges
  • Vague terms like inducement and allurement enable broad interpretation and misuse.
  • Possible violation of freedom of religion and conscience under Article 25.
  • Seen as conflicting with international protections like UDHR and ICCPR.
  • Allegations of discriminatory impact on minority communities engaged in proselytisation.
  • Multiple constitutional challenges questioning compatibility with secularism.

• Supreme Court Judgments on Anti-Conversion Laws
  • Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Orissa (1977)
    • The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of state anti-conversion laws.
    • Ruled that the right to “propagate” religion does not include the right to convert others.
    • Held that forced conversions can disturb public order, justifying state restrictions.
  • Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)
    • The Court held that religious conversion done solely to contract a second marriage is invalid.
    • Emphasised the need for a Uniform Civil Code to prevent misuse of personal laws.
    • Stated that conversions for ulterior motives are not genuine expressions of faith.
  • Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006)
    • The Court upheld the right of an adult to marry any person of their choice, irrespective of religion or caste.
    • Directed states to protect inter-faith and inter-caste couples from harassment.
    • Established that family or societal interference violates personal liberty.
  • K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
    • The Court declared privacy a fundamental right under Article 21.
    • Asserted that decisions about religion, marriage and faith fall within personal autonomy.
    • Strengthened the constitutional protection of voluntary religious conversions.
  • Hadiya v. Ashokan K.M. (2018)
    • The Court upheld Hadiya’s right to convert to Islam and marry a partner of her choice.
    • Stressed that an adult’s choice of religion and spouse lies within individual autonomy.
    • Overruled lower court intervention, reaffirming freedom of conscience.
• Way Forward
  • Review laws to ensure clarity and constitutional alignment.
  • Prevent coercion without discriminating between religions.
  • Adopt a balanced approach safeguarding autonomy and vulnerable groups.
  • Enable multi-stakeholder consultations with communities, civil society and experts.