Over 35 locations witnessed coordinated demonstrations led by the Bombay Catholic Sabha (BCS) — one of the largest lay organisations representing Catholics in Maharashtra. The participants gathered outside churches carrying placards reading “My Faith, My Right” and “Don’t Criminalise Compassion”, expressing alarm that the proposed Bill—while claiming to curb “forced” conversions—could, in effect, criminalise voluntary expressions of faith, humanitarian work, and social service. The BCS is one of the largest organisations of the Catholic laity representing as many as 68,000 believers.

‘A Violation of Article 25’: The constitutional concern

As per the press note released by BCS, protestors underscored that the Bill represents a direct affront to Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees “freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion.”

BCS spokesperson Dolphy D’Souza stated that the law’s vague and sweeping provisions could “interfere with an individual’s personal choice of faith” and “open the door for surveillance, policing, or discrimination against religious minorities.” D’Souza described the Bill as “a misnomer — there is no freedom in the so-called Freedom of Religion Bill,” adding that it risks chilling constitutional rights by blurring the line between legitimate religious activity and alleged conversion.

Newly elected President, BCS, Norbert Mendonca, stated to Sabrangindia,” We organised this this peaceful protest to affirm our commitment to constitutional values, religious freedom and  liberty, and communal harmony, and to appeal to the Government of Maharashtra to withdraw any move that infringes upon these rights.”

‘Every act of compassion could be misinterpreted’

From the people present at the protest, unifying fear emerged: that ordinary acts of kindness, charity, or social work could be weaponised as evidence of ‘inducement’ or ‘allurement’.

According to the BCS press note, the proposed Bill “threatens to criminalise compassion,” warning that “every act of kindness could be misinterpreted or maliciously portrayed as an attempt at conversion.”

This sentiment reverberated through the protest at St Michael’s Church, Mahim, one of the major protest sites, where BCS members explained that schools, hospitals, and welfare institutions run by Christian organisations serve people of all faiths. “Our work is motivated by faith and humanitarian concern — not conversion,” said one participant. “But under this Bill, even that service could be labelled inducement.”

‘Misuse and Targeting’: A familiar pattern

While the text of Maharashtra’s Bill has not yet been made public, Global Bihari noted that BCS apprehensions are informed by experiences in other states where similar “Freedom of Religion” laws have been introduced — including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Uttarakhand.

In Uttar Pradesh, the 2021 Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act has led to multiple FIRs and arrests. In May 2024, the Supreme Court observed that several provisions “may seem to be violative of Article 25,” staying further proceedings in certain FIRs. In Madhya Pradesh, the High Court in November 2022 declared Section 10 of its Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 — which required prior declaration before conversion — prima facie unconstitutional, with the Supreme Court refusing to stay that order in 2023.

Community Voices: Between fear and faith

The protests were marked not by confrontation but by prayer, song, and civic solidarity. At Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Goregaon (West), Free Press Journal reported that even non-Christian citizens joined the demonstration. Among them were civic and human rights activist Prof. Arvind Nigale, Gandhian Jayant Diwan, Rashtra Seva Dal convenor Umesh Kadam, environmental activist Mannan Desai, and Abu Shaikh from Jamaat-e-Islami, Goregaon — underscoring a rare show of interfaith unity.

In Mahim, Mid-Day report captured the mood poignantly: “This is not about aggression but awareness,” said Vinod Noronha of BCS. “Many people still do not know what this Bill is about. Our protest is to awaken civic consciousness, not to divide.”

Former BCS president Rita D’Sa added, “We would have actually liked to see inter-faith dialogue and goodwill. Instead, this Bill creates suspicion.”

‘A political diversion from real issues’

Beyond religious freedom, protestors questioned the political intent behind the legislation. As per the press note, it was provided that “While the stated aim of the Bill is to prevent forced or fraudulent conversions  experiences from other states suggests such laws in practice, could be used to harass faith-based groups, charitable institutions, or individuals who are simply practising their faith, especially in minority communities.”

It was further provided that such laws can be used selectively to harass minority groups, mirroring patterns seen elsewhere. “If the intent was merely to stop coercion, there would be no need for a new law. We already have adequate provisions in the Penal Code to deal with force or fraud.”

A retired Assistant Commissioner of Police, Joe Gaikwad, summed up the mood with quiet defiance while speaking to Mid-day: “If there was any conversion, it was from hate to love, from sinfulness to salvation. This is a peaceful community.”

‘Faith Does Not Require Permission’

As the gatherings drew to a close, participants joined in hymns and prayers. D’Souza’s concluding invocation, as quoted by Mid-Day, resonated across the crowd: “We pray, Lord, in your wisdom that you enlighten the minds of our leaders. Be with us in this moment of anxiety and grief. Let there be peace on earth.”

But this was no end — merely a beginning. The BCS announced a continuing campaign, with the next awareness event scheduled for November 16 at I.C. Colony, Borivali, as reported by all three outlets.

In its official press note, the BCS stated: “Our efforts will continue. The very title of the Bill is misleading — it is not a ‘Freedom of Religion’ law but a means to harass minorities. We will network with other religious communities and citizens of goodwill to defend the constitutional right to freedom of conscience.”

A broader warning

Beyond the Catholic community, the protest has become a bellwether for civil liberties in Maharashtra. Citizens for Justice and Peace, the lead on the case challenging various State anti-Conversion laws that remains pending before the Supreme Court, has warned that anti-conversion laws — though couched in the language of protection — often rely on vague and subjective terms such as “inducement,” “allurement,” and “coercion,” which invite misuse and threaten the presumption of personal autonomy. If enacted in its current form, the organisation fears that Maharashtra’s proposed law may replicate the chilling effects seen in northern states — discouraging interfaith marriages, constraining charitable activity, and empowering local authorities to surveil minority groups.

For the citizens gathered outside churches that Sunday, the message was clear: Faith is not a crime, compassion is not a threat, and constitutional freedom is not negotiable.

Related:

Guarding culture or policing faith? Chhattisgarh High Court’s ‘social menace’ observation and the future of Article 25

Allahabad High Court directs UP Police to ensure safe return of inter-faith to their desired destination

From Victim to Accused: High Court of Gujarat’s 2025 Ruling on Religious Conversion

SC: Freedom for man in interfaith union: SC grants bail to Muslim partner

Inter-Community clashes erupt at Dehradun railway station after interfaith couple meets

By quashing the FIR against an interfaith couple accused of “conversion”, the Allahabad High Court restores jurisprudence on a constitutional path, upholds freedom of choice

The post ‘Faith Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai’s Christians rise against Maharashtra’s proposed anti-conversion bill appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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:

“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

CJP plea against anti-conversion laws: SC seeks to know status of cases challenging ‘anti conversion’ laws in HCs

CJP, other rights groups challenge Maharashtra Govt GR setting up a Committee to “monitor inter-faith marriages”

The post Supreme Court seeks states’ replies on pleas for stay of anti-conversion laws, to decide on interim stay after six weeks appeared first on SabrangIndia.

PUCL has announced that it will lobby with the Governor and the President to prevent the bill from receiving assent, arguing that its legality is questionable and that it infringes upon the fundamental right to freedom of conscience, free speech, interfaith dialogue, equality, and individual choice. The organisation has warned that the bill’s punitive provisions are excessive and likely to be struck down by the courts if challenged.

Key concerns with the bill

PUCL pointed to several problematic provisions across the bill:

1. Overbroad definitions: The definitions under Section 2 are excessively wide, arbitrary, and untested for reasonableness. Concepts such as “allurement” and “coercion” are defined in ways far broader than similar state laws, and they introduce psychological pressure as a basis for criminal liability, which current police frameworks are ill-equipped to handle.
2. Prohibitory and punitive provisions: Section 3 declares conversions unlawful and, when read alongside Section 5, makes even voluntary adult conversions punishable. The bill also criminalises any form of abetment or “convincing,” which could include ordinary interfaith discussions, thereby stifling free expression.
3. Marriage and interfaith implications: The bill contains new restrictions affecting the right to marry, including potential implications for same-sex marriages.
4. ‘Ghar Wapsi’ and ambiguities: Section 3’s explanations, including provisions for “reconversion” to one’s previous faith, are vague and could be interpreted to support forced reconversions (“ghar wapsi”) targeting Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and Ambedkarite communities. The law fails to clarify temporal limits for prior conversions, leaving room for discriminatory enforcement.
5. Draconian sentences: Punishments are extraordinarily severe: a minimum of seven years imprisonment (extendable to 14 years) and fines of ₹5 lakh for general violations; longer sentences and higher fines apply for women, minors, SC/ST individuals, and mass conversions. PUCL asserts that such mandatory sentencing is unconstitutional.
6. Invasive administrative oversight: The bill mandates intrusive District Magistrate inquiries into every conversion, potentially affecting interfaith marriages. Parties who “counsel, convince, or procure” conversions are criminalised, which constitutes a disproportionate restriction on free speech and interfaith dialogue.
7. Burden of proof on the accused: Section 12 places the burden of proof on individuals accused of facilitating conversions, violating the fundamental principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof.

Conclusion

The PUCL asserts that the Rajasthan anti-conversion bill is an unconstitutional, overreaching law that undermines democratic principles and individual liberties. By attempting to regulate personal faith and interfaith interactions through coercive administrative and punitive measures, the bill threatens to marginalise minority communities and stifle free expression. The organisation is committed to lobbying at the highest levels of the state and central government to prevent the bill from becoming law.

Related:

Protests across Maharashtra denounce the Public Security Act as unconstitutional and anti-democratic

From Whispers to Shouts: How India’s voter roll irregularities are finally being heard

Labour rights, health of workers hit in the name of “reform”: PUCL Maharashtra

The post PUCL slams recently passed Rajasthan anti-conversion bill as “draconian and unconstitutional” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), which has long acted as a safeguarding organisation of human rights of the citizens of India, is the lead petitioner in the writ petitions, filed in January 2021, challenging anti–conversion laws of various states such as Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh. Subsequently in additional petitions, anti-conversion laws of Chattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand and Karnataka have also been challenged. The draconian laws have been challenged on various grounds such as for violating right to personal liberty and autonomy, right to freedom of speech and expression, right to privacy, freedom of faith, right against discrimination.

CJP has also explored the illusive concept of “love jihad” which is a sectarian concept and against the principles of pluralism and secularism adopted by India. The petition also challenges the law on the grounds of being anti–women and discriminatory against women, as it takes away the agency of women for making decisions of their own lives.

Content of the legislation

The Rajasthan government recently enacted the Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill 2024, which aims to stop forced religious conversions and has sparked a lot of debate. Despite the bill’s claimed goal of preventing coerced religious conversion, its harsh provisions—such as 10-year prison sentences and penalties of up to 50,000—raise fundamental questions regarding individual liberties and the possibility of abuse. Critics contend that by targeting particular communities under the pretence of preventing forced conversions, such law not only violates individual liberty but also runs the risk of widening communal disparities. The Bill is available on the website of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly.

Important Provisions

According to the Bill, religious conversion by compulsion, force, allurement, or deception is primarily considered prohibited. Allurements may include money, material rewards, employment, free education, etc.

As per the Bill, the individual who “caused” the conversion have the duty of proving that the religious conversion was not achieved by fraud, coercion, undue influence, allurement, or any other fraudulent means or methods.

The assumption of innocence principle, which often applies to the accused in a criminal proceeding, is being reversed here.

The offences covered by this Bill are classified as cognisable and non-bailable, which means that the accused may be arrested without a warrant and that obtaining bail may be difficult. Concerns regarding the possibility of misuse and the violation of individual liberties are raised by this classification.

The draft suggests harsh punishments for illegal conversions, such as fines of up to ₹50,000 and jail time of one to ten years. In particular, converting women, children, or members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes can lead to a fine of ₹25,000 and two to ten years in prison. The penalty rises to three to ten years of imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000 for mass conversions. Repeat offenders would be punished no more than twice the legal penalty for each additional offence. Concerns regarding possible abuse and the targeting of particular communities have been raised due to such severe penalties.

The Bill also includes “conversion by solemnisation of marriage or relationship in the nature of marriage,” in its list of offences.

The Bill states that “Any marriage done for sole purpose of unlawful conversion or vice-versa by the man of one religion with the woman of another religion, either by converting himself/herself before or after marriage, or by converting the woman before or after marriage, shall be declared void by the Family Court or where Family Court is not established, the Court having jurisdiction to try such case on a petition presented by either party.”

As per the Bill, blood relatives have the power to lodge an FIR in a suspected case. It says that, “Any aggrieved person, his/her parents, brother, sister, or any other person who is related to him/her by blood, marriage or adoption may lodge a FIR”.

Authorities are shielded from prosecution or other legal actions for any actions conducted in accordance with the proposed law by Section 13 of the Bill, which is titled “Protection of action taken in good faith.”

The Bill states that “No suit, prosecution, or other legal proceedings shall lie against any authority or officer for anything done in good faith or intended to be done, or purported to be done, or omitted to be done in pursuance of this Act, or any rule or order made thereunder.”

There have been various instances in recent years where members of disadvantaged communities have been wrongfully accused of converting individuals and then acquitted by the courts.

While the Bill protects government officials from potential legal action, it does little to stop instances in which innocent people are targeted after being falsely accused of illegal conversion.

Voluntary conversions

The Bill provides an exhaustive procedure to be followed by individuals who wish to voluntarily convert to another religion.

Individuals who wish to convert to another religion must apply to the district magistrate (DM) at least 60 days before the conversion; failure to do so can result in a minimum fine of Rs 10,000 and a maximum sentence of three years in prison.

Subsequently, the “convertor,” or the one conducting the conversion ceremony, would notify the DM one month in advance via a designated form; failure to do so would result in a minimum punishment of Rs 25,000 and a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

An officer not below the rank of Additional DM will then “have an inquiry conducted through police with regard to the real intention, purpose, and cause of the proposed religious conversion.”

Within 60 days of conversion, the converted individual must submit a declaration to the DM in the required format. Until the date of confirmation, a copy of the declaration must be posted on the DM’s office notice board.

The convert’s date of birth, permanent or current address, father’s or husband’s name, religion before and after conversion, conversion date and location, and other details will be included in this declaration. In order to prove their identification and validate the information in the statement, the convert must then appear before the DM within 21 days of the declaration being filed.

Requirement of the Bill

According to the Bill’s statement of reason, while the constitution guarantees everyone the fundamental right to profess, practise, or propagate their religion, the freedom of conscience and religion cannot be interpreted as a collective right to proselytise; the right to religious freedom is equally applicable to the person seeking conversion as it is to the person converting.

The statement of reasons says that “However, in the recent past many such examples have come to light where gullible persons have been converted from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by fraudulent means. The law related to right to religious freedom already exists in various States of the country but there was no statute on the said subject in Rajasthan.” It further add that “In view of the above, it was decided to enact a law to provide for prohibition of unlawful conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or fraudulent means or by marriage and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

Ghanshyam Tiwari, a legislator for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), commended Chief Minister Bhajan Lal Sharma for his “historic decision” to crack down on religious conversions and “love jihad,” a phrase used by right-wing groups to refer to a purported Muslim plot to court Hindu women. The phrase is not recognised by the Union government or courts.

The issue of “love-jihad” and the myth surrounding forced conversions has been discussed in depth in an article published by CJP.

Concerns raised by the Bill

While the Bill proposes to be aimed at preventing forced conversions, various concerns have been raised as the Bill may infringe upon the Fundamental Rights and has a vast potential for misuse.

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which protects people’s freedom to openly profess, practise, and propagate their religion, is allegedly violated by the law, according to critics. It is believed that the necessary advance warning and post-conversion statement requirements constitute excessive government meddling in private religious choices.

There are concerns that the bill can be abused to target religious minorities and stifle peaceful religious expression. It has been reported that similar laws have been used in other jurisdictions to harass minority communities while claiming that they are preventing forced conversions.

The requirement that people inform authorities of their intention to convert is seen as a breach of their right to privacy and their freedom. Critics have argued that these clauses might discourage people from exercising their freedom to freely choose and convert to a different religion.

Further, those suspected of unlawful conversion are given the burden of proving their innocence under the bill, which goes against the legal doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty.” This change may result in legal abuse and erroneous convictions.

Authorities that operate “in good faith” under the statute are granted immunity under Section 13 of the bill. Critics contend that the authorities may act without any concerns of consequence because they are protected from legal action, this clause may result in the persecution of innocent people.

Furthermore, the bill gives family courts the authority to deem marriages void if it turns out that they were performed with the intention of committing an illegal conversion. This clause has drawn criticism for presumably violating people’s right to marry and choosing their own religion.

What is the reality of Religious Conversions in India?

While the right–wing government is attempting to introduce legislation governing religious conversions, an important question arises regarding the reality of religious conversions and the threat posed by the same. Is religious conversion a serious issue which requires implementation of a law that could potentially violate fundamental rights, or is it just a Trojan horse being used by the Government to fulfil hidden sinister agendas under the garb of protecting “gullible persons.”

In 2021, the Pew Research Centre released a report titled Religious Composition of India. The Report dealt with the changing religious composition of India and the causes of religious change.

According to the Report, 99% of persons who claim to have been raised as Hindus still identify as such. 97% of those who were raised as Muslims remain Muslims. Additionally, 94% of Indians who grew up as Christians remain Christians. Furthermore, people who change their religions often balance each other out. For instance, of all Indian adults, 0.7% were raised as Hindus but do not identify as such at the moment, while 0.8% were raised outside of the religion but are now Hindu.

Additionally, interfaith marriage is highly uncommon. 99% of married Hindus, 98% of married Muslims, and 95% of married Christians report having a spouse who shares their beliefs, according to the same survey. 92% of Christians and comparable percentages of Muslims and Hindus claim that their spouse was brought up in their present faith.

These findings raise questions about the true intentions of anti-conversion laws and the threat posed by forceful conversions. The false sense of insecurity regarding religion created by right–wing extremists has served merely as a fuel to fan the flames of religious disparities in India.

Conclusion

While the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025, purports to prevent forced conversions, it actually poses the risk of violating the fundamental rights provided in the Constitution of India. The law fosters an atmosphere that is conducive to abuse by giving officials broad immunity, imposing undue procedural limits on voluntary conversions, and transferring the burden of proof to the accused. It exerts state control over individual faith choices rather than defending religious freedom, disproportionately harming interfaith couples and religious minorities.

Furthermore, the narrative of widespread forced conversions is not supported by empirical data, which raises questions about whether such legislation is merely political ploys rather than providing true protection. In other states, similar legislations have already resulted in increased communal divisions, harassment, and false allegations. Laws such as this divert attention and are a means of policing individual liberty rather than tackling actual socio-economic problems. The government must concentrate on establishing legislative protections that forbid coercion without violating individual liberties if the goal is really to uphold individual rights. Otherwise, this law remains yet another step towards eroding India’s secular and pluralistic fabric.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this community resource has been worked on by Yukta Adha)

Related:

CJP plea against anti-conversion laws: SC seeks to know status of cases challenging ‘anti conversion’ laws in HCs

CJP’s Love Jihad Petition: SC issues notice to UP and Uttarakhand

CJP moves SC against “Love Jihad” laws

RightsCast: How India’s anti-conversion Laws are linked to the weaponization of the state administration

Curbing Freedom of Faith: India’s Anti-Conversion laws

“Love Jihad” laws curb individual and collective freedoms

2024: Love Jihad as a socio-political tool: caste, endogamy, and Hindutva’s dominance over gender and social boundaries in India

Rising religious polarisation: Tridents symbolise growing communalism in Rajasthan

The post Are Indian anti-conversion laws targeting minorities or protecting the vulnerable? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The statement of the reasons for the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2024 notes that “Keeping in mind the sensitivity and seriousness of the crime of illegal religious conversion, the dignity and social status of women, and the organised and planned activities of foreign and anti-national elements and organisations in illegal religious conversion and demographic change, it has been felt that the amount of fine and penalty provided in the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act should be increased and the bail conditions should be made as stringent as possible”.

Earlier, Section 4 of the Act read, “Any aggrieved person, his/her parents, brother, sister, or any other person who is related to him/her by blood, marriage or adoption may lodge a First Information Report of such conversion which contravenes the provisions of section 3.” With the latest amendment, the provision has been changed to include “any person”, thus even unknown people, not related to the person in question can file complaint on their behalf. This can potentially lead to misuse of the provision, especially by right-wing groups, who often target minorities in an avowedly self-righteous manner.

The bill has also added provision to punish anyone using foreign funding for the purpose of religious conversion. The new provision added to the law states that “whoever receives money from any foreign or illegal institution in connection with unlawful religious conversion shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to 14 years, and shall also be liable to pay a minimum fine of Rs 10 lakh.”, the Indian Express reported.

Similarly, before the amendment, Section 5 (1) of the Act read, “Provided that whoever contravenes the provisions of section 3 in respect of a’ minor, a woman or a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine which shall be not less than rupees twenty five thousand”. The maximum punishment under this provision has now been increased to 14 years imprisonment and a fine not less than 1 lakh rupees. A cognate provision dealing with mass conversion under the unamended law provided a maximum punishment of 10 years with a minimum rupees fifty thousand fine, which has now been increased to maximum imprisonment of 14 years with a minimum fine of 1 lakh rupees.

Most significantly, bail restricting provision is also added to the law, which is quite similar to the extraordinary laws like UAPA and PMLA. The added sub-provision to Section 7 of the Act reads, “A person accused of any offence punishable under the Act, if in custody, shall not be released on bail unless the public prosecutor is given an opportunity of opposing the application for bail for such release, or where the public prosecutor opposes the application for bail, the session court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that no offence can be committed by him while on bail”. This additional qualification for securing bail could discourage courts from granting bail to the accused under the law, with a high possibility of such accused languishing in jails as undertrials. Given the fact that the existing law already reverses the burden of prove, the new amendments would further disempower accused under the law which says that the “burden of proof as to whether a religious conversion was not effected through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage, lies on the person who has caused the conversion and, where such conversion has been facilitated by any person, on such other person.”

Notably, Citizens for Justice and Peace is the lead petitioner that has challenged the 2021 Uttar Pradesh Anti-Conversion law and similar laws passed in eight other states. The first petition challenging the anti-conversion laws of was filed in December 2020, which argued against the constitutionality of these laws enacted by the states of Uttar Pradesh (which initially issued it through an ordinance before enacting the Act), Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh (WP Criminal Nos 428/2020). In December 2021, it filed another petition, this time challenging the similar laws passed by Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Haryana and Karnataka (WP Criminal Nos 14/2023). CJP has argued that the said laws are violative of Article 14 (due process), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 25 (freedom of conscience and religion), and therefore unconstitutional.

Related:

Allahabad HC: Repeated rejection of police protection pleas of interfaith couples, here’s why this is problematic | CJP

Allahabad HC rejects bail plea in alleged conversion case; stating Article 25 does not provide right to convert religion | CJP

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws | CJP

RightsCast: How India’s anti-conversion Laws are linked to the weaponization of the state administration | CJP

The post UP passes draconian amendments to its anti-conversion law with stringent bail provision and maximum sentence of life imprisonment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Stating that Christians are as much citizens of India as anyone else and deserve equal protection under the law, the statement says that the constitutional Court should have limited its focus to the criminal law aspect of the case rather than being swayed by “majoritarian religious considerations and making sweeping statements about a specific religious community.” Further, the statement says that the UCF is concerned that these observations could expose the Christian community to further persecution.

The UCF has also pointed out that Christians in several parts of India, including Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, and Rajasthan, face targeted violence. Analysing constitutional provisions, the statement says that the High Court failed to distinguish between voluntary and forced conversions and made several statements, such as:

• “It (conversion)is against the Constitutional mandate of Article 25.”
• “…such religious congregation should be immediately stopped where conversion is taking place and changing the religion of citizens of India.”
• “Unlawful activity of conversion of people of SC/ST castes and economically poor persons into Christianity is rampant throughout Uttar Pradesh.”
• “…it (Article 25) does not provide for conversion from one faith to another.”

Article 25 guarantees individuals the freedom to change their religion according to their conscience. The Court’s judgement suggests that conversion is against religious freedom, which contradicts various Supreme Court decisions upholding the right to change one’s faith. Additionally, the constitutional validity of several “anti-conversion” laws is currently under challenge before the Supreme Court.

“Despite no convictions for conversions via allurement in Uttar Pradesh, many cases have been filed under anti-conversion laws. In 2023, 733 hostile acts against Christians were reported to the UCF Helpline alone, and nearly half came from Uttar Pradesh. A People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) report titled Criminalizing Practice of Faith documented police collusion with self-described ‘Hindutva’ groups, noting frequent disruptions of Christian practices. Such mobs typically mobilise attackers, alert police about purported ‘forced conversions,’ and vandalise churches, recording and circulating videos of these actions. A petition calling for stringent measures against such vigilante groups remains pending before the Supreme Court.”

“Several ‘anti-conversion’ legislations mandate that only an affected person register a complaint. However, police often arrest Christians based on complaints from these self-ascribed “Hindutva” groups claiming prior knowledge of ‘forced conversions.’”

Article 14, a legal research group, has analysed over a hundred FIRs filed under the anti-conversion law in Uttar Pradesh and discovered that of these, 63 were based on third-party complaints, including 26 from organisations affiliated with the “Hindutva” political ideology. Researchers have documented how anti-conversion laws are used to target religious minorities. False cases can persist for years, justifying brutality and violence against Christians accused of conversion, violating their rights to life and liberty.

Despite the violent consequences we saw in Manipur after the communally coloured baseless statement of the Manipur High Court in W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023, which was recalled after the Supreme Court’s observations, it is unfortunate that such incidents are repeated with impunity. Earlier in the murder case of Graham Stains, the Apex Court itself suo moto expunged the expression “Converting poor tribals to Christianity”, following public outcry and criticism from various quarters.

Given all these established precedents, the United Christian Forum has respectfully urged the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court to suo moto expunge the sweeping allegations made against the entire Christian community from the order dated July 1, 2024, considering the dangerous ramifications.

Related:

Allahabad High Court rejects bail plea in alleged conversion case; says Article 25 does not provide right to convert religion

Allahabad HC: Repeated rejection of police protection pleas of interfaith couples, here’s why this is problematic | CJP

Allahabad High Court quashes FIR against couple accused of ‘conversion’ accusations, upholds freedom of choice | CJP

Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh High Courts issue conflicting rulings on interfaith marriage under Special Marriage Act | CJP

Allahabad High Court stands firm on personal liberty interfaith marriage ruling | CJP

The post Allahabad HC’s recent judgement dubbed “saffron-tinged”, “fuelling fear among Christians,” says United Christian Forum appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Prosecution had levelled serious charges against all four accused, alleging that they engaged in activities that posed a threat to the nation’s interests. Their purported actions involved orchestrating large-scale conversions of individuals within the state of Uttar Pradesh, persuading them to convert from Hinduism to Islam through extensive promotion of the Islamic faith. Furthermore, the appellants are said to have provided rehabilitation and support to the converted individuals.

It was in 2021, the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) arrested these individuals and accused them of generating a substantial fund to finance their conversion activities, which constitutes an offense under the ambit of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. They were also charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups), 153-B (assertions prejudicial to national integration), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 417 (punishment for cheating), 298 (uttering words with the deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), 121A (conspiring to commit certain offenses), 123 (concealing with intent to facilitate design to wage war), and the Sections 3/5/8 of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

After hearing the arguments presented by both parties and thoroughly examining the case records, the Court observed that during the initial stage, an FIR was filed against three specific accused individuals and several unidentified persons in connection with the alleged racket. Notably, the four appellants were not mentioned in that same FIR. The Court further took note of the fact that, upon the conclusion of the investigation, a police report in the form of a charge sheet was submitted before the competent court. Subsequently, the court took cognisance of the matter and framed charges against the appellants and other co-accused persons, and the trial is currently underway.

Considering these circumstances and taking into account the fact that their co-accused have already been granted bail by both the Supreme Court and the High Court, the Court granted bail to the appellants based on their pleas.

The Uttar Pradesh Anti-conversion law, currently under challenge in the Supreme Court, is a clear infringement on the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Disguised as a measure to maintain public order, the law, first enacted as an ordinance has severely diluted the essence of Article 25, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion. Moreover, it directly violates Article 21 of the Constitution, encroaching upon the right to marry, the right to privacy, and the right to personal autonomy. One of the most troubling aspects of the statute is its presumption of guilt rather than innocence. In India’s legal system, individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but this ordinance reverses that principle by presuming those involved in proselytization as guilty from the outset. Furthermore, when applying tests of hostile discrimination and manifest arbitrariness, it becomes evident that the ordinance fails to treat all citizens equally before the law. It creates a discriminatory environment where certain vulnerable groups, such as economically weak, marginalized, and privileged women, are assumed to be susceptible to conversion. This presumption not only perpetuates stereotypes but also violates Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on gender.

The Uttar Pradesh Anti-conversion law undermines the foundational principles of the Constitution, including the right to freedom of religion, the right to personal autonomy, and the principle of innocence until proven guilty.

It also displays discriminatory tendencies, particularly against women, and thus raises serious concerns about its constitutionality and adherence to the principles of justice and equality, the act also violates the judgments of supreme court in following cases: Hadiya Judgment 2017[16 SCC 368, AIR 2018]: The matters of dress, food, ideas, ideologies, love, and partnership form the core aspects of an individual’s identity.

The State and the law cannot impose or restrict choices in selecting partners or impede a person’s freedom to decide on these vital matters. The K.S. Puttaswamy or ‘Privacy’ Judgment 2017[2017 10 SCC 1]: The autonomy of an individual encompasses the ability to make decisions concerning crucial aspects of life that directly concern them. Lata Singh Case 1994: The apex court recognized that India is undergoing a crucial transformative phase, and preserving the strength of the Constitution relies on embracing the richness of our diverse culture.

In cases of inter-religious marriage, relatives dissatisfied with the union should opt for peacefully cutting off social relations instead of resorting to violence or harassment (Soni Gerry case, 2018[SLP NO 6237/2017): The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned judges against assuming the role of “super-guardians” and making decisions based on sentimental or egotistical factors of parents.

Since its enactment in 2020, the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act has resulted in the registration of at least 433 cases by the Uttar Pradesh police. Among these cases, 184 victims have come forward to confess that they were forcefully converted to a different faith, while 66 cases involve minors who were subjected to such conversions.

Notably, the Bareilly police zone has seen the highest number of registrations, with 65 cases reported. Providing insight into the progress of these cases, Prashant Kumar, the Special Director General of Law and Order, stated that charge sheets have been filed in 339 cases, and investigations are still ongoing in 47 cases. Additionally, final reports have been filed in four cases.

The total number of individuals named in these 433 cases amounts to 1,229. Throughout the investigation process, the role of 124 accused individuals could not be established, leading to their release. Moreover, approximately 70 individuals named in the cases have voluntarily surrendered themselves in court.

The cases in Moradabad and Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh, serve as stark examples of how anti-conversion laws can be prone to abuse. The case of a Christian priest in Azamgarh named pastor Nathaniel is accused of propagating and intimidating people to convert to Christianity. The complainant in the case was not any attendee of his prayer service, rather his neighbour a local BJP leader Sudhir Gupta who cannot be the complainant as per the law as section 4 of the Act. This section (4) explicitly stipulates that any individual who has been subjected to forceful or fraudulent conversion, as well as their blood relatives or family members, hold the right to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) concerning such conversion. In essence, this section clarifies that the complainant in such cases can be either the person who experienced coercion into conversion or any of their blood relatives or family members.

There is, however, a pattern being noticed across the districts where non-affected third party complaints to the police or they follow the channel of involving Hindutva vigilante groups to read further [The Quint, April 2023].

Although the law was ostensibly intended to uncover instances where religious conversion is solely for the purpose of facilitating marriages, the UP law has failed to effectively communicate its objectives, leaving no clear roadmap for identifying such cases. Consequently, there is a heightened risk of misuse of the law. In such a scenario, the burden of upholding justice and safeguarding individual rights falls heavily on the judicial system.

The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently upheld the principle of personal liberty for individuals who have attained the age of majority, and this responsibility becomes all the more crucial in light of the potential for misuse of the law.

Based on these observations, it is evident that the Uttar Pradesh legislation unjustly encroaches upon the constitutional right of individuals to marry the person of their choice.

This law could potentially undermine the principles laid out in the Special Marriage Act (SMA), 1954 and, even more importantly, the original vision of the Constitution’s framers for a Uniform Civil Code.

An immediate intervention is necessary to repeal laws like these as forced conversion is already proscribed, and introducing additional laws would only further erode the protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights. Moreover, it is crucial to prevent other states from following suit and enacting similar legislation that may compromise individual freedoms. To safeguard the principles of liberty and equality enshrined in the Constitution, it is essential to take prompt action and ensure that such restrictive laws are abolished, allowing every citizen to exercise their right to marry freely and protect their constitutionally upheld rights.

The recent judgement may be read here

[i] https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_states/uttar-pradesh/

https://theprint.in/india/1-year-of-up-anti-conversion-law-108-cases-chargesheet-filed-in-72-lack-of-proof-in-11/770763/

Related:

SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws

The post Anti-conversion law of Uttar Pradesh: a litany of misuse appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Manohar Lal Khattar led Haryana cabinet has approved the Haryana Prevention of Unlawful Conversion of Religious Bill, 2022 which will be tabled in the Assembly’s budget sessions beginning March 2. The Bill is likely to be passed by majority since the BJP-JJP coalition has a majority in the Vidhan Sabha.

In December, Karnataka government had passed an anti-conversion law thus becoming the 5^th BJP ruled state to pass one. In March, Haryana will likely become the 6^th such state to pass a stringent law against religious conversions on basis of a false and flimsy narrative of “love jihad” which most BJP-ruled states believe is an allurement tactic used by minority religions to lure Hindu girls by way of marriage to convert them to their religion.

The BJP-JJP led Haryana government had been mulling over an anti-conversion law since 2020. In August 2021, Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar had addressed a press conference declaring that the final draft of the “forced religious conversions” bill will be finalized soon.

“Law is enacted to create a deterrent for people when they start doing something wrong. Such incidents [of ‘love jihad’] have started taking place in a few places of Haryana,” he had said.

The said Bill is proposed to seek to prohibit religious conversions which are effected through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage or for marriage by making it an offence. The proposed law recognises that the right to freedom of religion is guaranteed under Articles 255, 26, 27 and 28 of the Constitution of India.

However, it states that “the individual right to freedom of conscience and religion cannot be extended to construe a collective right to proselytize; for the right to religious freedom belongs equally to the person converting and the individual sought to be converted.”

The state’s rationale behind the bill is, “In recent past several instances came to the notice that with an agenda to increase strength of their own religion by getting people from other religions converted, people marry persons of other religion by either misrepresentation or concealment of their own religion and after getting married they force such other person to convert to their own religion.”

Under the proposed law, the burden of proof as to whether a conversion was not affected through misrepresentation, use of force, under threat, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage or for marriage for the purpose of carrying out conversion lies on the accused. The bill also seeks to declare those marriages null and void, solemnized by concealment of religion.

Addressing the Press, CM Khattar said:

प्रदेश में गैर कानूनी तरीके से या जबरन धर्मांतरण पर रोक लगाने के लिए आज ‘गैरकानूनी धर्मांतरण निषेध बिल-2022’ को मंजूरी दे दी गई है। pic.twitter.com/Lef3D7cugI

— Manohar Lal (@mlkhattar) February 8, 2022

The Karnataka law

When the Karnataka Right to Freedom of Religion Bill, was set to be passed by the State Assembly hundreds of citizens, joined activists from around 40 socio-political organisations and marched to protest. Speaking at the protest, advocate and constitutional law expert Arvind Narrain said that the Supreme Court has recognised that individuals have the freedom to dress the way they want, eat what they want and practise the faith they want. The bill by seeking to target conversions interferes with both the human right to dignity and the freedom to practise the faith of their choice.

“The bill is anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Buddhist,” said Ruth Manorama of Women’s Voice as she highlighted her own Dalit Christian identity and said that  as an activist with 40 years of experience working with slum residents, Dalits and women and  the capacity to mobilise lakhs of people, she had not converted even one individual.

Prevailing laws challenged

Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) originally challenged the constitutional validity of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and the passing of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020. The plea was then amended to include similar laws passed by Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh  as well, which was allowed by the top court. 

The laws have been challenged stating that Indian citizens enjoy the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right but the Acts and the Ordinances are unconstitutional as they attempt to control the life of the residents of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh, and to not allow them to take charge of the significant decisions in their life. 

The petition has also said, “Love Jihad has played over the years to divide the country with no official numbers or evidence of forced conversions and that the fears of rising ‘love jihad’ cases have been “baseless” from the very start. Even though the rhetoric of Love Jihad has been sold off quite often in India, especially starting from Kerala and Karnataka, the Government had admitted that the term ‘Love Jihad’ is not defined under the extant laws and no such case of ‘Love Jihad’ has been reported by any of the central agencies.” 

Related:

K J George pinpoints major flaws in anti-conversion Bill

Hundreds march in protest: Karnataka anti-conversion law

Karnataka becomes fifth BJP-ruled state to introduce Anti-Conversion Bill   

The post Haryana cabinet approves “anti-conversion” bill appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The following is the full text of the speech made by Shri K J George, former Minister and MLA, Sarvajnanagar (Bengaluru City), before the Karnataka Legislative Assembly on the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Bill, 2021 (popularly known as anti-conversion Bill).

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Chairman Sir,

  We are discussing a very serious issue today. The Law Minister said this Bill is not against any religion. I agree with his statement. My fellow legislator, Shri Gulihatti Sekhar is a good friend of mine. Speaking in this House, he mentioned about his mother converting to Christianity. He himself said she had converted because of her own belief….But he also claimed that people were being converted at the instigation of the church.

  I can tell you from my experience that I have been a legislator of this Assembly because of the support from the people of all religions, castes and creed. I have been elected five times. I have functioned as a Minister. We all have to work according to the Constitution.

  Being a Christian, I was pained by what Gulahatti Sekhar mentioned. I go to the church regularly. In none of the churches they talk of conversion. They extend their good wishes to those ruling the State – be it BJP, JD(S) or Congress – and pray for them. Most Christians want peace. But, there will be bad elements, just like there are such elements among Hindus and Muslims also. That’s why we have the laws and the government in power is expected to take action as per law.

  Sekhar claims that his mother was forcibly converted. If it was really so, being a legislator himself, why didn’t he act? The Constitution clearly states that no conversion can or should be done through force or inducement. If he was really aggrieved, he could have taken recourse to legal action. But, he has chosen to make false allegation against an entire religion and its community. He did not stop there. As a member of the Legislature’s social welfare minority committee he presided over one of the meetings in the absence of the Chairman and directed government officials to visit all churches….. (At this stage, Shri George’s speech was interrupted by some members and for a few minutes, there was chaos in the House and nothing could be heard clearly. After the House was brought to order, Shri George continued his speech on the Bill.)

   Deputy Speaker Sir, what I’m trying to stress here is that we Christians have reposed complete faith in the Constitution. There are specific provisions in the Constitution against forcible conversion or conversion through inducements. I completely agree with that. Our Arch Bishop has made it clear that no one should be converted forcibly. He has gone a step further and said that if any Christian institution indulges in forcible conversion, such institution would be closed down….We have made it amply clear that if some individuals have strayed, action should be initiated against them.

   If we go back in history, we will find that Hinduism is being practiced in this country for over 5,000 years. The Hindus have lived peacefully for centuries long before we had political parties like the BJP and the Congress. This country has been invaded by people like Alexander and ruled over for several centuries by the Muslim rulers, the British and the Portuguese. But, none of them could erase or shake Hinduism. It remains as strong as ever even to this day.

   History tells us that Buddhism branched out of Hinduism and started spreading widely across the world. I have a lot of respect for Buddhism. It seems that at one point when Buddhism appeared poised to overtake Hinduism, the great Guru, Shri Sankaracharya quietly intervened, travelled to four corners of this big continent, set up ‘Peetas’ and convinced people that they had to give up some of the regressive practices that were corroding Hinduism. Did Sankaracharya take out an Army or relied on a ‘Bill’ to bring about radical reforms? No. In his short life of 34 years, the Guru travelled hundreds of miles by foot and won over people through convincing argument and persuasion. He is credited with saving this great religion at a very critical moment in history.

   Deputy Speaker Sir, the point I’m making is that you cannot bring about reforms through Bills or legislation. We have to win over people with rational arguments. The Chief Minister (Shri Basavaraja Bommai) in his speech, mentioned about the prevalence of widespread poverty and exploitation even 74 years after Independence. I fully agree with him that whichever party is in power, we have to make sincere efforts to uplift them. Let the government take stringent measures to fight untouchability and improve their standards of living. We will extend our full support.

   I will explain why we are opposed to this Bill. If it was meant to curb forcible conversion or conversion through allurement, we would have had no objection. But, look at its provisions. Even giving a gift is classified as ‘allurement.’ Shouldn’t anybody give a gift? It also says one shouldn’t offer material benefits like cash or kind. I agree with that. But, it also finds fault with offering employment or free education in schools run by religious institutions. Is it wrong to uplift the down-trodden and exploited sections of society with free education?

   I will tell you where the government is going wrong. This Bill does not require the complainant to provide proof. He or she can make the allegation and keep silent. The burden of truth is on the alleged accused. I will give an example. As a Christian, I might choose to employ anyone including Hindus. I know that there are many good people among Hindus, but there are also black sheep. Someone with mischievous intent might send somebody to work in my company and later make an allegation that K J George converted or tried to convert that person. According to this Bill, I have to prove my innocence. Is this correct?

  We run a number of educational institutions where we give fee concessions to the poor and also provide them with employment wherever possible. You will look such noble activities with suspicion. Is it the right thing to do?

   The Bill also provides for any unconnected person, who is not even an aggrieved party, to give a compliant. Yes, allowing the parents of the helpless persons or mentally disabled, is understandable. But even they need to provide proof. I’m of the firm opinion that nobody should be allowed to make a wild allegation and go missing. They should provide evidence and take responsibility for the allegations made.

   Yesterday, I was reading an excellent article in the Vijayavani newspaper written by Sadguru Madhusudan Sai titled, “Sanatana Dharma and Sarva Dharma Samanvaya”. (Sanatana Dharma and homogeneity of religions.) He writes that Sanatana Dharma has never opposed the propagation of other religions and that though truth is one, the Jnanees find different ways to describe it.

   It says that how we appear externally is not important. The essence of Sanatana Dharma is to experience the oneness of world religions and love and respect everyone equally. In fact, every religion has good things. Buddhism says, ‘Treat others as you will treat yourselves.’ The Bible exhorts, ‘Love thy neighbour as you will love thee.’ The great Confucius says, ‘Don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do.’ The Hindu philosophy propagates, ‘Vasudaiva Kutambakam’ (The world is a family.) Prophet Mohammed says, ‘If you are not prepared to give to your brother what you love most, you have no trust in God.’ Jainism says, ‘Show love and kindness to all living beings.’

  Therefore, what is clear is that only if we respect other religions, their gurus and their sacred books, we will get similar respect from others. Everyone knows that Hinduism is a very tolerant religion. And it does not discriminate against others. The Indian Constitution also speaks of freedom of religion and freedom to propagate one’s religion without disrespecting other religions. That’s the way it should be.

  But, recently, we have seen a church being attacked in Chikballapur and a prayer being disrupted with the singing of bhajans in a church at Hubballi. Some people will be constantly trying to disturb peace in society. We are a democratic nation. Therefore, whichever party is in power, our objective should be to let people live amicably and harmoniously. If you do good work, people will appreciate you. So, my appeal to you is don’t inject hatred and mistrust among different communities and sections of people with such ill-conceived legislations.

With these words, I conclude my speech by thanking the Chair.

The post K J George pinpoints major flaws in anti-conversion Bill appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The buzz was around for a few months that Karnataka is set to pass an anti-conversion law in line with other Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ruled states which already have such a law in place. The Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Bill, 2021 was tabled on December 21 by Karnataka home minister Araga Jnanendra, and soon after it was torn to pieces by Karnataka Congress president DK Shivakumar on the floor of the house! The bill was approved by the state Cabinet a day prior to its introduction in the State Assembly.

Precursor to the bill

Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai had said in October that the “anti-religious conversion laws” that are already in place in BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat “will be studied to formulate a strong legislation in Karnataka.” He said, “A strong law will be brought into effect soon.” The state has a stringent anti-cow slaughter ban in place since February, 2021.

What preceded the discourse was a survey of churches undertaken by Karnataka’s legislative committee on backward classes and minority welfare. Records of the backward classes and minorities affairs, home, revenue and law departments, show that there “are about 1,790 churches in the state,” and the survey was to be conducted to find out how many of them are “illegal”. The committee had claimed that there have been “36 forced conversions cases” registered in the state in the past few months.

Amidst these discussions at the governance level, right-wing vigilante mobs had gotten a free hand in the state and even got an impetus to brazenly launch attacks on Christian places of worship and to oppose the faith in every way possible.

Right-wing mobs stormed into churches and chanted Hindu slogans. A proposal to name a park inside the St Aloysius (autonomous) College campus in Mangaluru ‘angered’ the right-wing so much that they created a major hate campaign that forced the college to call off the event. In mid-December, a group of right wing miscreants set Christian religious books ablaze in Kolar, while in Belagavi, a man entered a church armed with a machete. In Belur, Hassan district, Karnataka, a group of men claiming to be members of the Bajrang Dal disrupted worship at a Christian prayer hall,.

What’s on the table?

The Bill seeks to protect the right to freedom of religion, and prohibits unlawful conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means.

The Bill then goes on to define these terms such as allurement, Coercion, force, fraudulent, undue influence and so on. The Act also defines “mass conversion” as an incident where two or more persons are converted and “conversion” itself is defined as “renouncing one’s own religion and adopting another religion”.

Naturally, it prohibits religious conversion, under section 3, by “misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by any of these means or by promise of marriage.” The Bill does not consider ‘ghar wapsi’ or reconversion to immediate previous religion as conversion at all. This is in line with the Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand laws. The HP Act uses the words “parent religion”, the UP ordinance uses the word “immediate previous religion” and the Uttarakhand Act uses the word “ancestral religion”.

Who can complain: Any person related to the converted person by blood, marriage or adoption or in any form associated or colleague can file a complaint against such conversion (section 4).

Punishment: Any person who commits conversion by the illegal means mentioned above in section 3  can be imprisoned for up to 3 to 5 years and a fine of Rs. 25,000. If the same offence is in respect of a minor or a person of unsound mind or a woman or a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe then the maximum term of imprisonment increases to 10 years and minimum is 3 years and the fine increases to Rs. 50,000.

It is pertinent to note that the minimum punishment under this Bill is the highest among all other anti-conversion laws, where the same is 1 year. Also the maximum punishment for contravention in respect of minors etc., is in line with the UP and MP laws, which is 10 years. (section 5)

Every offence under the Bill is cognisable and non-bailable. (section 7)

Mass conversion: The Bill also punishes mass conversion with minimum 3 years imprisonment and maximum 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh! The fine amount is inline with the MP law and the maximum punishment is in line with UP and MP laws. (section 5)

Compensation: The court is also mandated to provide compensation to the victim from the accused, up to Rs. 5 lakh which is to be in addition to the fine imposed as punishment. No other law has such a provision for compensation except for the UP law. (section 5)

Repeat offender: A repeat offender is to be imprisoned for at least 5 years and a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs. While the laws of other states do not mention the fine amount, the punishment under the UP law cannot exceed double the punishment of that offence and under MP law the upper limit is 10 years. (section 5)

Sole purpose of marriage: The bill states that any “Any marriage which has happened with sole purpose of unlawful conversion or vice-versa by the man of one religion with the woman of another religion, either by converting himself before or after marriage or by converting the woman before or after marriage, shall be declared as null and void” by the concerned court or Family court ((section 6)

This is completely congruent with the UP, HP and Uttarakhand laws which have the same provision.

Notice before conversion: A notice of conversion is required to be given 30 days prior to the District Magistrate by the convertor as well as the person who wishes to get converted. Such notice will then be displayed publicly on the notice board of the office of the District Magistrate and in the office of the Tahsildar calling for objections. If conversion is done without such conversion, it is considered illegal and void. (section 8)

Objection to conversion: If any objections are received to such conversion, the DM is required to conduct an inquiry through officials of Revenue or Social Welfare Department with regard to genuine intention, purpose and cause of the proposed conversion. (section 8)

Notice after conversion: The converted person is also required to give notice within 30 days of conversion. If no objections were called for prior to conversion then the DM will call for objections. (section 9)

Declaration of conversion: The declaration is to contain “the particulars of the converted person such as date of birth, permanent address, the present place of residence, Father’s/husband’s name, the religion to which the converted person originally belonged and the religion to which he has converted, the date and place of conversion and nature of process gone through for conversion along with a copy of the identity card or the Aadhar card.” 

While sub-section 2 states, “District Magistrate shall notify religious conversion on the notice board”, since the language is unclear, by all means the DM could display on the notice board the declaration given by the converted person where all the personal details are mentioned which not only invades the privacy but also poses a threat to the life and property of such person. (section 9)

 The converted person is also required to be present before the DM within 21 days of the declaration to establish his identity and confirm the contents of the declaration. 

If an objection is received, a similar procedure is followed and if not, the conversion is recorded in a register and an official notification is to be issued and ‘concerned authority’ is intimated. 

Concerned authority: The concerned authority who is to be informed of the factum of conversion includes the person’s “employer, officials of the revenue department, social welfare department, backward classes welfare department, minority welfare department and other concerned department, urban and rural local bodies, Principals or Head Masters of the Educational Institutions, etc.” (section 9) 

Burden of proof: The burden of proof that the conversion was not carried out illegally lies on the person who has caused the conversion and on the abettor who aids or abets such conversion. This provision is in line with the UP law. 

More stringent than ever 

The Bill is more stringent than the prevalent anti-conversion laws in that it has the highest minimum punishment prescribed for the offences under the proposed law, which is 3 years, while others have minimum punishment of 1 year or more. 

The punishment for mass conversion is also the most stringent with maximum punishment of 10 years and higher penalty. The definition of mass conversion, in line with UP and MP, leaves room for absolute abuse since it simply punishes conversion of two or more persons even if it is not being carried out by illegal means like fraud etc. 

The only provision that sets the Karnataka Bill apart from other similar laws, especially the ones passed in recent time by UP, MP, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand is that it does not consider “conversion by marriage” to be an illegal means. It only considers conversion carried out by “promise of marriage” to be illegal and as an offence. 

The Bill has only been tabled and is yet to be passed. Certainly, like the other laws, this one is also likely to be passed amidst chaos and opposition in the House as clearly the Opposition is not agreeable to the Bill and its provisions. 

Prevailing laws challenged

 Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) originally challenged the constitutional validity of the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018 and the passing of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020. The plea was then amended to include similar laws passed by Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh  as well, which was allowed by the top court. 

The laws have been challenged stating that Indian citizens enjoy the Right to Privacy as a fundamental right but the Acts and the Ordinances are unconstitutional as they attempt to control the life of the residents of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh, and to not allow them to take charge of the significant decisions in their life. 

The petition has also said, “Love Jihad has played over the years to divide the country with no official numbers or evidence of forced conversions and that the fears of rising ‘love jihad’ cases have been “baseless” from the very start. Even though the rhetoric of Love Jihad has been sold off quite often in India, especially starting from Kerala and Karnataka, the Government had admitted that the term ‘Love Jihad’ is not defined under the extant laws and no such case of ‘Love Jihad’ has been reported by any of the central agencies.” 

The complete Bill may be read here:

Related:

Will Karnataka soon enact a tough “anti-conversion law”?

CJP moves SC to include MP, HP in its ‘Love Jihad’ petition

“Love Jihad” laws curb individual and collective freedoms   

The post Karnataka becomes fifth BJP-ruled state to introduce Anti-Conversion Bill appeared first on SabrangIndia.