On Tuesday, September 16, 2025, the Supreme Court directed nine States to file their responses to interim applications seeking a stay on the operation of their respective anti-conversion legislations. These laws, though formally styled as “Freedom of Religion Acts,” have been widely challenged for allegedly curtailing fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of religion and the right to marry across faiths.
The Bench and the proceedings
The matter came up before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, which was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of religious conversion laws enacted by Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka.
The illusion of ‘Love Jihad’ has led violence and intimidation by police and non-state actors. The Anti-Conversion laws legitimise un-constitutional, anti-minority and misogynistic beliefs, and help further the hateful, communal agenda of extremists. CJP is challenging these laws as they impinge upon the privacy, freedoms and autonomy of consenting adults. Help CJP fight for equality and choice. Donate now to keep #LoveAzaad.
The Bench granted four weeks’ time to the States to file their affidavits in reply and fixed the matter for consideration after six weeks. Allowing for all the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioners, including Citizens for Justice and Peace, the Court also appointed Advocate Srishti Agnihotri as nodal counsel for the petitioners and Advocate Ruchira Goel for the respondents to facilitate preparation of compilations.
At the same time, the Court de-tagged a Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking a pan-India law to criminalise religious conversions carried out through deceit or coercion. CJI Gavai clarified that while the present proceedings examine the constitutionality of State enactments, Upadhyay’s plea was of a different nature and thus could not be heard together.
Petitioners’ Submissions: Harsh punishments, vigilantism, and targeting of interfaith couples
Appearing for lead petitioner Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh stressed that there was great urgency in granting interim protection because several States were not only enforcing existing laws but also amending them to make them harsher.
Singh highlighted the 2024 amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, which prescribes a minimum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment, for conversion through marriage deemed unlawful. Bail under this provision has been tied to the “twin conditions” regime, akin to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), making release on bail nearly impossible.
He further noted that the law permits third parties to file complaints, which has emboldened vigilante mobs to harass couples in interfaith marriages or even those merely participating in religious observances and church services. “These so-called ‘Freedom of Religion’ laws are being weaponised against minorities and those in interfaith marriages,” Singh submitted.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW), echoed these concerns, pointing to the Uttar Pradesh and Haryana laws, and confirmed that her client too has filed an application specifically seeking stay of their operation.
Singh also drew the Court’s attention to the fact that Rajasthan has recently enacted a similar law, demonstrating the growing trend of States passing such statutes.
Context of earlier High Court orders
The Bench was reminded that both the Gujarat High Court (2021) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court had granted partial stays on certain provisions of their respective anti-conversion laws, holding them to be prima facie unconstitutional.
- The Gujarat High Court had stayed provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021, noting that they intruded into the domain of marriage and personal choice, thus violating Article 21.
- The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dealing with the MP Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, restrained the State from prosecuting adults marrying of their own volition and stayed the requirement under Section 10 (prior declaration before the District Magistrate before conversion).
Both these States have since appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the interim orders of their High Courts.
Intervention by other petitioners
The hearing also saw appearances by Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, Sanjay Hegde, MR Shamshad, Sanjay Parikh, and others, all representing parties opposing the anti-conversion laws.
Singh urged that the Court must urgently stay the operation of the laws across States, given the severe chilling effect they are having on religious freedom and interfaith marriages.
When Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay pressed for his plea seeking a blanket pan-India law against deceitful conversions, CJI Gavai responded sharply:
- “Who will decide if a conversion is deceitful?”
- Singh intervened, pointing out that the Upadhyay petition was entirely different in nature since the present challenge is to the validity of existing State laws.
- The Court then formally de-tagged Upadhyay’s petition from the ongoing proceedings.
CJP’s previous submissions on weaponisation of laws
On April 16, during the previous hearing, before the bench of the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Singh had also underlined that an interim application has been filed specifically highlighting incidents of weaponisation of these laws. He argued that “again and again, these laws are being invoked to harass minorities,” and urged that the Supreme Court issue notice on this application.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, had contested this claim, stating: “My Lords, there are no such instances.”
The then CJI asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani to consider the applications filed by the petitioners and clarify to the Court where the Union has objections and where it does not, to ensure expedited hearings.
The Court then passed an order permitting States and non-applicants to file responses to these applications even if no formal notice had been issued, in order to speed up completion of pleadings.
Details may be read here.
Background of the challenge
The litigation traces back to January 2020, when a Bench led by then CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha first issued notice on these petitions. Subsequently, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind moved a transfer petition seeking consolidation of all challenges pending before six different High Courts—Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh—before the Supreme Court.
CJP’s central contention is that these laws violate Articles 21 and 25, impinging upon individual liberty, the right to privacy, and the right to freedom of conscience and religion. They argue that the requirement of state approval or prior intimation before conversion is an unconstitutional burden and exposes individuals to harassment, communal targeting, and violence. Reliance is placed on precedents like KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan KM (2018), which uphold privacy, autonomy, and the right to marry a partner of one’s choice.
The petitions also emphasise that such laws are rooted in conspiracy theories like “love jihad”, and effectively deputise vigilante groups to police interfaith relationships.
Today’s order
Summarising today’s hearing, the Court ordered:
- States to file their responses within four weeks.
- Matter to be listed after six weeks for consideration of stay applications.
- Nodal counsels appointed to streamline compilations.
- Ashwini Upadhyay’s petition de-tagged.
- Pleadings to be completed swiftly, with the Attorney General asked to assist on which applications the Union may or may not oppose.
The Court made it clear that it will consider the petitioners’ prayer for staying the operation of these laws after six weeks, once responses from States and the Union are on record.
Detailed reports may be read here and here.
Related:
SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws