Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Union government and 12 states on a fresh public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws enacted across several parts of the country, signalling a renewed judicial examination of statutes that regulate religious conversions.A Bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud issued notice to the Centre and to states including Rajasthan and Arunachal Pradesh after hearing initial submissions on a petition filed by the National Council of Churches in India. The petition questions whether these laws, framed in the name of preventing forcible or fraudulent conversions, infringe fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Meenakshi Arora urged the court to stay the operation of the challenged laws, arguing that their wording and enforcement have a chilling effect on lawful religious activity. The Bench did not grant interim relief at this stage but asked the respondents to place their positions on record, setting the stage for detailed hearings.
The plea targets anti-conversion statutes in Rajasthan, Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka. While the exact provisions vary by state, most laws criminalise conversions carried out by force, fraud or allurement and require prior intimation or post-conversion declarations to district authorities. Penalties typically range from fines to imprisonment, with enhanced punishment where women, minors or members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are involved.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that such requirements invert the constitutional presumption of individual autonomy by placing the burden on citizens to justify personal faith choices to the state. The petition argues that vague terms such as “allurement” or “inducement” are susceptible to arbitrary interpretation, enabling misuse against minority communities and religious workers. It also points to instances where arrests or investigations were initiated without clear evidence of coercion, creating what it describes as a climate of fear around voluntary conversions.
Several states, however, have consistently defended their laws as necessary to maintain public order and prevent exploitation. Governments in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat have earlier told courts that organised conversion rackets pose social risks and that regulatory frameworks are essential to deter coercive practices. They have maintained that voluntary conversions remain lawful and that procedural safeguards are intended to ensure transparency rather than restrict belief.
The Union government has previously supported the authority of states to legislate on the subject, citing public order as a state matter under the Constitution. In earlier affidavits in related cases, the Centre has argued that the right to propagate religion does not include a right to convert another person and that reasonable restrictions are permissible. The fresh notice now requires the Centre to clarify its stance in the context of the present challenge, which consolidates objections to multiple state enactments.
Legal scholars note that the court’s decision to seek comprehensive responses reflects the growing patchwork of anti-conversion laws and the need for clarity on constitutional boundaries. Some statutes date back decades, such as Odisha’s law from the 1960s, while others have been enacted or amended over the past decade with stricter provisions. This uneven evolution has led to differing enforcement standards and judicial scrutiny across states.
Civil liberties groups have welcomed the hearing, viewing it as an opportunity for the judiciary to address concerns about overreach and proportionality. They argue that criminal law should target demonstrable coercion rather than impose broad prior restraints on religious choice. Supporters of the laws counter that without regulatory oversight, vulnerable populations could be targeted through material inducements disguised as charity or welfare.