Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill 2026: Anti-Conversion Law and Constitutional Debate
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill 2026 was passed by voice vote in the Maharashtra Assembly, introducing stringent provisions against religious conversions carried out through coercion, fraud, inducement, or marriage.
The bill imposes imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine of Rs 1 lakh for unlawful conversions; conversions targeting minors, women, persons of unsound mind, or SC/ST individuals attract seven years imprisonment and Rs 5 lakh fine; mass conversions attract the same, with repeat offenders facing ten years imprisonment.
A person intending to convert must give 60 days' prior notice to the District Magistrate; the convert must inform authorities within 21 days of conversion, failing which the conversion is treated as invalid.
Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis stated the bill is "not against any religion," framing it as a measure to prevent forced and fraudulent conversions.
Opposition members including Congress MLAs raised concerns about potential vigilantism, violation of the right to privacy, and adverse impact on the constitutional right to freedom of religion.
Maharashtra becomes one of around a dozen states — including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand — with anti-conversion legislation.
Article 25: Freedom of Religion
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees all persons equal entitlement to freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. The right to propagate religion is constitutionally recognised but does not extend to the right to convert another person against their will — a distinction that forms the legal foundation of anti-conversion laws.
The Maharashtra bill invokes the State's authority under Article 25(2) to prevent fraud and coercion in conversions, but critics argue that prior-notice requirements and criminal penalties intrude on the individual right to freely profess and change religion.
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977): Landmark Precedent on Anti-Conversion Laws
The Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) upheld the constitutional validity of Odisha and Madhya Pradesh anti-conversion laws, ruling that Article 25 does not include the right to convert another person. The Court held that the right to propagate religion means the right to spread one's beliefs, not to coerce or induce conversions; forced conversion impinges on the "freedom of conscience" of the convertee.
Maharashtra's bill draws legitimacy from the Stainislaus precedent, but its 60-day prior-notice and post-conversion reporting requirements may face fresh constitutional challenge under the privacy jurisprudence of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which recognised the right to privacy as fundamental under Article 21.
Love Jihad Laws and the Intersection of Personal Law and Religious Freedom
Several Indian states have enacted what are colloquially called "love jihad" provisions, making conversions solely or primarily for the purpose of marriage a cognisable offence. These provisions sit at the intersection of personal religious freedom, matrimonial law, and criminal law, raising questions about the State's authority to regulate the motive behind personal decisions.
Key Details
- Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2021 — one year to ten years imprisonment; prior permission required for conversion through marriage.
- Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019 — up to two years imprisonment; extends to those facilitating conversion.
- Legal critics argue these provisions create a chilling effect on inter-faith marriages protected under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
- Courts have distinguished between consent-based personal religious conversion (protected) and coerced/induced conversion (regulable).
Maharashtra's bill specifically penalises conversions "on the pretext of marriage" with seven years imprisonment, placing it squarely within this contested category of legislation that courts across multiple states are continuing to scrutinise.
Parliamentary Oversight and State Legislative Competence
Under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the State List (List II) and the Concurrent List (List III) define the division of legislative powers between the Union and states. "Public order," "Police," and "Prevention of cruelty to animals" fall under the State List; religious matters are interwoven across Concurrent and State entries. States derive authority to enact freedom-of-religion legislation from Entry 1 (Public Order) of the State List.
Key Details
- The Governor's assent is required for state bills; the President's assent is required when the bill is reserved by the Governor (Article 200–201).
- Religion-related legislation touching fundamental rights can be challenged before High Courts (Article 226) and the Supreme Court (Article 32).
- The Maharashtra bill was passed by voice vote — opposition parties who raised concerns cannot force a division of votes unless supported by the requisite numbers.
- States cannot legislate in ways that are repugnant to a central law on the same subject (Article 254).
The Maharashtra bill's journey is not over — it requires the Governor's assent and may face judicial review, especially given pending Supreme Court scrutiny of similar laws from other states.
- At least 12 Indian states have enacted anti-conversion or freedom-of-religion legislation as of 2026.
- Maharashtra's bill: 7 years imprisonment + Rs 1 lakh fine (basic offence); 7 years + Rs 5 lakh fine (for minors, SC/ST, women); 10 years + Rs 5 lakh fine (repeat offenders or mass conversions).
- 60-day advance notice to District Magistrate required before conversion; 21-day post-conversion reporting window.
- Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) — foundational Supreme Court ruling upholding state anti-conversion laws.
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) — right to privacy as fundamental right under Article 21 — potential basis for challenging prior-notice provisions.
- Special Marriage Act, 1954 — provides for inter-faith and civil marriages without religious conversion.