‘Enter at own risk’: churches to non-Christians as anti-conversion law takes effect in Chhattisgarh
The Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 2026 has come into operational effect, prompting some churches in the state to display precautionary notices for non-Christian visitors as a safeguard against being implicated under the Act's provisions.
Community representatives have said the notices are a defensive measure to avoid falling foul of the law's requirements around religious conversion, rather than a restriction on entry itself.
The Act replaces the earlier Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968, and imposes significantly stricter penalties, including long-term and life imprisonment, for conversions carried out through force, fraud, allurement, undue influence, misrepresentation, or marriage.
The law requires persons intending to change their religion, and those facilitating such conversions, to notify designated authorities in advance, with verification and objection procedures built into the process.
Article 25 — Freedom of Religion and the Right to Propagate
Article 25(1) guarantees all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has clarified that this right does not extend to a right to convert another person to one's own religion, a distinction that forms the constitutional basis on which state anti-conversion laws have been upheld.
Key Details
- In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court held that the right to "propagate" religion under Article 25(1) means the right to transmit or spread one's religion through exposition of its tenets, not a right to convert another person; the judgment upheld the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh and Odisha anti-conversion laws challenged in that case
- Article 25 is subject to Article 25(2), which allows the State to regulate secular activities associated with religious practice and to provide for social welfare and reform
- Anti-conversion laws are typically framed as regulating the manner of conversion (force, fraud, allurement), not conversion itself, in order to stay within this constitutional boundary
The Chhattisgarh Act, like earlier state laws, is drafted to prohibit conversion by force, fraud, allurement, or misrepresentation rather than conversion as such, tracking the constitutional distinction drawn in Rev. Stainislaus.
State "Freedom of Religion" Laws — Legislative Landscape
Anti-conversion legislation in India is a state subject, since "religious and charitable institutions" and related matters fall largely within the domain the Constitution allocates for state legislation, and multiple states have enacted their own such laws with varying provisions and penalties.
Key Details
- Odisha was the first state to enact such a law, the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, followed by Madhya Pradesh in 1968; Chhattisgarh (carved out of Madhya Pradesh in 2000) continued to apply a version of this framework until its 2026 Act replaced it
- Other states with anti-conversion laws include Uttar Pradesh (2021), Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Arunachal Pradesh, and Karnataka (2022); some laws, such as Tamil Nadu's 2002 Act, have been enacted and later repealed
- These laws commonly share features: a prior-notice or declaration requirement to a district-level authority, cognizable and non-bailable offences, and enhanced penalties where the person being converted is a minor, woman, or from a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, or Other Backward Classes background
- Multiple such state laws are currently facing constitutional challenges before the Supreme Court on grounds including the reversal of the burden of proof onto the accused and alleged infringement of Article 25
The Chhattisgarh Act fits this broader pattern of state-level freedom of religion laws, and its declaration and verification requirements, along with enhanced penalties for vulnerable groups, mirror provisions already being tested in ongoing constitutional litigation over similar laws in other states.
Prior Declaration and Verification Requirements
A defining feature of the newer generation of anti-conversion laws, including Chhattisgarh's 2026 Act, is a mandatory prior-declaration mechanism: a person intending to convert must notify a designated authority in advance, triggering a verification and public-objection process before the conversion is treated as valid for legal purposes.
Key Details
- Under the Chhattisgarh Act, the competent authority for receiving such declarations is the District Magistrate or an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate, authorised for the purpose
- The authority is required to publicise details of the proposed conversion, such as the name and the current and intended religion, within a specified period, to allow objections to be raised
- Offences under the Act are cognizable and non-bailable, meaning police can arrest without a warrant and bail is not a matter of right
- Penalties range up to life imprisonment for mass conversions, with enhanced minimum sentences where the person converted is a minor, woman, person with disability, or belongs to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, or Other Backward Classes community; conversion to Hinduism from indigenous or tribal faiths is treated differently under some analogous state laws, a point that has drawn criticism on equality grounds
The precautionary notices reportedly displayed at some churches reflect concerns that ordinary religious activity, such as visits by non-Christians, could be misconstrued as facilitating unlawful conversion under this declaration and verification regime, given the law's cognizable, non-bailable character and reversed burden of proof.
- Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 2026: replaces the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968
- The Act prescribes penalties extending up to life imprisonment for mass conversions and 10 to 20 years' imprisonment where the person converted is a minor, woman, or from a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, or Other Backward Classes community
- Offences under the Act are cognizable and non-bailable
- Landmark case upholding the constitutionality of the underlying legislative approach: Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977)
- Odisha's 1967 law was India's first state-level anti-conversion law; roughly a dozen states now have such laws, several of which face pending constitutional challenges before the Supreme Court