Sharp political debate has erupted after the Maharashtra government introduced a sweeping anti-conversion law in the state assembly, drawing fierce criticism from All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen leader Asaduddin Owaisi, who warned that the proposed legislation could criminalise genuine religious conversions and undermine the constitutional right to privacy.Owaisi described the proposed Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam 2026, also referred to as the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, as “worse than the worst of such laws” in a post on the social media platform X. The Hyderabad Member of Parliament argued that the bill risks turning personal decisions about faith and marriage into matters of criminal investigation, particularly affecting interfaith couples. His remarks intensified a wider national debate about the growing number of state-level laws aimed at regulating religious conversion.
The bill, introduced in the Maharashtra legislative assembly by Minister of State for Home Pankaj Bhoyar, seeks to prevent conversions carried out through coercion, fraud, inducement, misrepresentation or marriage. Proposed provisions prescribe imprisonment of up to seven years and financial penalties for those found guilty of participating in unlawful conversions, with stricter punishments for cases involving vulnerable groups such as women, minors, and members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Offences under the law would be treated as cognisable and non-bailable, allowing police to begin investigations without prior court approval.
According to the draft legislation, any individual intending to convert to another religion must notify the district authorities at least sixty days before the conversion ceremony. Authorities would then publish details of the proposed conversion and invite objections from the public. After the ceremony, both the person converting and the organiser of the religious rite must submit a declaration confirming that the conversion took place voluntarily. Failure to comply with these procedural requirements could render the conversion invalid under the proposed law.
Critics say the structure of the bill introduces extensive administrative oversight into matters traditionally considered part of personal conscience. Owaisi argued that the requirement for prior notice and the possibility of police investigation effectively place interfaith marriages under suspicion. He warned that the bill could make it “risky for interfaith couples to marry,” adding that even voluntary conversions might be treated as criminal acts.
Another contentious element concerns the burden of proof. Under the proposed legislation, individuals accused of facilitating a conversion would be required to demonstrate that it occurred voluntarily and without coercion. Civil rights groups and legal commentators have expressed concern that such provisions invert the usual presumption of innocence in criminal law.
Owaisi also questioned the bill’s broad definitions of inducement and influence, warning that they could allow authorities to interpret routine religious activities as unlawful persuasion. He suggested that teaching or discussing religious texts could potentially be interpreted as “brainwashing through education,” a phrase he highlighted while criticising the draft law. Such wording, he argued, could open the door to arbitrary arrests.
The AIMIM leader framed the debate in constitutional terms, invoking the right to privacy and freedom of belief guaranteed under the Constitution. He noted that the Preamble promises liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, and argued that any law regulating conversion must be carefully balanced against those guarantees. Maharashtra’s historical association with Dr B. R. Ambedkar’s mass conversion to Buddhism also featured in his criticism, which he described as a reminder of the state’s legacy of religious reform and freedom of conscience.
Supporters of the bill maintain that legislation of this kind is necessary to prevent coercive conversions and protect vulnerable individuals. State authorities argue that the law is designed to ensure that religious changes occur voluntarily and without pressure. Officials presenting the bill said its objective is to safeguard public order while preventing fraudulent or forced conversions conducted under the pretext of marriage or other inducements.
The Maharashtra proposal mirrors similar “freedom of religion” statutes enacted in several other states across the country. Over the past decade, states including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Gujarat have introduced laws regulating religious conversions, often citing concerns about forced conversions or organised campaigns targeting vulnerable communities. Many of those laws have faced legal challenges, with courts examining whether provisions requiring prior permission or imposing strict penalties violate constitutional protections.
Legal scholars note that the judiciary has repeatedly affirmed that adults have the freedom to choose their faith and partner. Court rulings in multiple cases have underscored that personal liberty includes the right to marry and practise religion without interference, though the state retains authority to regulate activities involving coercion or fraud.