New Delhi: On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a notice regarding a petition that questions the constitutional legitimacy of anti-conversion laws implemented by various states.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi requested responses from the Union government and the relevant states within four weeks, indicating that this case will be heard alongside other similar petitions already pending before the court.
The petition, brought forth by the National Council of Churches in India (NCCI), challenges the Freedom of Religion Acts passed in states including Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Arunachal Pradesh, and Odisha.
CJI Surya Kant noted that the issues at hand are of significant constitutional relevance and will be reviewed by a three-judge bench.
Filed by advocate Niharika Ahluwalia, the petition argues that the contested laws infringe upon fundamental rights protected under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, and 30 of the Constitution, seeking a declaration that these statutes are unconstitutional.
As a form of interim relief, the petition requests that the Supreme Court prevent state police from taking any coercive actions under the disputed laws. It claims that these laws operate on an "unconstitutional presumption" that adult religious conversions are inherently coerced or fraudulent, thus requiring prior government approval for deeply personal decisions.
The petition further contends that the requirements for prior notification, inquiry, and permission from district authorities distort the citizen-state relationship, undermining individual autonomy and violating privacy, dignity, and religious freedom.
Additionally, it criticizes the vague and overly broad definitions of terms like "conversion," "allurement," "inducement," and "undue influence," which grant unchecked discretion to authorities, leading to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
The petition also highlights the problematic expansion of complainant classes to unrelated third parties, which has allowed vigilante groups to misuse criminal law without a complaint from the affected individual, resulting in arrests, extended detention, denial of bail, and social stigma.
By reversing the burden of proof, the petition argues that these laws violate fundamental principles of criminal justice, including the presumption of innocence and procedural fairness. Some provisions are said to rely on "paternalistic and gendered assumptions," particularly regarding women as inherently susceptible to unlawful conversion.
The petition also references international human rights obligations, asserting that state control over religious conversion contradicts India's commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The respondents in this case include the central government and the twelve states that have enacted the contested legislation.
-
'CM Nitish Kumar Govt Committed To Creating One Crore Jobs By 2030,' Says Bihar Governor Arif Mohammed Khan
-
Quote of the day by Stephen A. Schwarzman: 'Business is usually a team sport. There isn't one...' - leadership lessons by the Blackstone CEO & co-founder
-
Quote of the day by Benjamin Franklin: 'An investment in knowledge pays the best interest' - lessons on learning, growth, and success by the founding father of the United States
-
Budget 2026 plays the long game
-
Why Budget 2026 was never just about numbers, but also political calculations
