Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has taken a historic step by transferring to itself all petitions pending before various High Courts that challenge the constitutional validity of State laws on religious conversion. The decision came on September 16, 2025, in Citizens for Justice and Peace v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. and connected matters. These petitions primarily question the legality of so-called “anti-conversion laws” enacted by States like Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and more recently, Rajasthan.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran is now set to examine whether these laws—framed under the guise of protecting freedom of religion—actually infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The Court also indicated that it would consider applications seeking to stay the operation of such laws after six weeks.
This development marks a crucial juncture in the ongoing national debate on interfaith marriages, forced conversions, and the balance between religious freedom and public order.
Background: The Rise of Anti-Conversion Laws
Several States in India have enacted laws regulating religious conversion. These are often titled “Freedom of Religion Acts” but are commonly referred to as “anti-conversion laws.” Proponents argue that they are necessary to curb conversions by coercion, fraud, or allurement. Critics, however, contend that these laws stigmatize interfaith relationships and provide a tool for harassment, particularly against religious minorities.
For example:
- Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 – imposes stringent conditions on interfaith marriages and conversions, including prior notification to authorities and a reverse burden of proof.
- Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 – prescribes jail terms up to 10 years for “unlawful conversions.”
- Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019 – prohibits conversions by misrepresentation or undue influence.
- Rajasthan Freedom of Religion Bill, 2025 – recently enacted, adding to the growing list of such legislations.
While States justify these laws on grounds of protecting vulnerable communities, human rights activists argue that they violate Articles 14 (equality before law), 19 (freedom of speech and expression), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion) of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Proceedings
1. Transfer of Petitions
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising submitted before the Court that multiple petitions challenging similar laws were pending in various High Courts. To ensure uniformity, she urged the Court to consolidate them. The Bench agreed and ordered that all such petitions be transferred to the Supreme Court.
The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Natraj, representing the State of Madhya Pradesh, raised no objection, leading CJI Gavai to state:
“Ok, transfer all such petitions here. Amendment application allowed.”
This means that a single authoritative ruling will now determine the fate of all anti-conversion laws in India.
2. Concerns Raised by Petitioners
Senior Advocate CU Singh highlighted the harsh provisions of the Uttar Pradesh law, stating:
- Minimum sentence of 20 years for violations.
- Twin bail conditions similar to those under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
- Reverse burden of proof, making it nearly impossible for accused individuals to secure bail.
He also pointed out that interfaith couples, especially those marrying against social norms, are disproportionately targeted. Instances of mob harassment during festivals were cited to demonstrate misuse of these laws.
Advocate Vrinda Grover echoed these concerns, specifically challenging the UP and Haryana conversion rules and seeking a stay on their operation.
3. Court’s Observations
The Bench noted the gravity of the issues involved but refrained from granting an immediate stay. Instead, it directed the States to file their responses and fixed the matter for hearing after six weeks.
When Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay sought directions to ban “deceitful conversions,” the Court clarified that the present matter concerned the validity of laws rather than the enactment of new ones. The CJI remarked:
“Who will find out if it’s deceitful or not?”
This underlines the Court’s focus on constitutional validity rather than policy-making.
Constitutional Issues at Stake
The hearing raises several constitutional questions:
- Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25) – Does criminalizing voluntary conversion restrict the freedom to propagate and practice one’s faith?
- Right to Privacy and Personal Liberty (Article 21) – Do prior notice requirements for conversion or interfaith marriage violate the right to privacy, as upheld in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)?
- Equality Before Law (Article 14) – Are these laws discriminatory, targeting specific communities under the guise of preventing forced conversions?
- Burden of Proof – Is placing the burden of proof on the accused consistent with principles of criminal jurisprudence and the presumption of innocence?
Previous Judicial Stance
- In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court upheld State laws prohibiting conversion by force, fraud, or allurement. However, it did not address voluntary or consensual conversions.
- In Hadiya v. Ashokan K.M. (2017), the Court recognized the right of adults to marry a person of their choice, regardless of religion.
- In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan (2018), the Court reiterated that consent of two adults is paramount in marriage decisions.
These precedents suggest that while forced conversions can be regulated, laws that impose blanket restrictions or procedural hurdles on voluntary conversions may not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
Impact on Society and Interfaith Marriages
Anti-conversion laws have become a flashpoint in India’s socio-political landscape. Critics argue that they create an atmosphere of suspicion around interfaith relationships, often giving rise to vigilantism and mob violence. Several reports suggest that individuals from minority communities face harassment merely on suspicion of conversion.
On the other hand, supporters of these laws argue that they are necessary to protect vulnerable groups from coercion and exploitation. The outcome of the present case will therefore have far-reaching consequences not only on interfaith marriages but also on the broader interpretation of religious freedom in India.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear all petitions challenging anti-conversion laws marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of India’s constitutional jurisprudence on freedom of religion. By centralizing the matter, the Court ensures uniformity in judicial pronouncements and avoids conflicting judgments from different High Courts.
The upcoming hearings will test the delicate balance between preventing coercive conversions and safeguarding individual rights to freedom, privacy, and equality. Whether the Court strikes down these laws, upholds them, or reads them down will have profound implications on interfaith harmony, secularism, and the protection of personal liberty in India.
As the matter is set to be listed after six weeks, all eyes will remain on the Supreme Court, which holds the responsibility of upholding constitutional values in the face of politically sensitive issues.
Also Read
Supreme Court Directs Maharashtra to Hold Local Body Elections by January 31, 2026
Supreme Court Upholds Karta’s Power to Sell HUF Property for Daughter’s Marriage Expenses
