by Bishop Savio Fernandes*

The auxiliary bishop of Bombay weighs in on the ongoing debate in this Indian state over the bill against "forced" conversions that the state government wants to submit to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. “[I]solated incidents [. . .] could be addressed under existing criminal laws.” A source of concern, the bill is contrary to personal freedom since it would allow a relative to file a complaint.

 

Mumbai (AsiaNews) – The government of the Indian state of Maharashtra recently approved its own anti-conversion bill, with the intention of submitting it to the local Legislative Assembly for consideration.

The piece of legislation, whose text has not yet been made public, establishes a rigorous procedural framework for religious conversion, including a 60-day notice to a designated district authority to obtain authorisation before the conversion takes place.

The bill also provides that if a relative of the person who converts files a First Information Report alleging that the conversion occurred illegally, the police will be required to register it. A person convicted under this law could face up to seven years in prison and a fine of 500,000 rupees.

Regarding the debate and concerns that this bill, which mirrors similar provisions already in force in other Indian states, is raising, we publish a statement by the Auxiliary Bishop of Bombay, Most Rev Dominic Savio Fernandes.

In any democracy, legislation must ultimately pass the test of the Constitution. Laws are most durable and legitimate when they protect the fundamental rights of citizens while addressing clearly identifiable public concerns. Clarity in legislative drafting, balance in regulatory approach, and fidelity to constitutional guarantees are therefore essential to sound law-making.

As per the website of Akashvani, the Maharashtra Cabinet has cleared a proposed Freedom of Religion Bill. The legislation is apparently meant to prevent religious conversions through force, fraud, or inducement. These are legitimate concerns in any society. However, laws of this nature must be grounded in clear evidence of widespread misuse rather than isolated incidents that could be addressed under existing criminal laws. Whenever statutory language is overly broad or imprecise, it risks extending beyond its seeming intended purpose. Careful drafting therefore becomes essential to ensure that the law addresses genuine wrongdoing without creating uncertainty or unintended consequences.

Experiences from other Indian states provide useful insights. States such as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttarakhand have enacted laws intended to prevent conversions obtained through force, fraud, or inducement. Supporters view these laws as protective measures designed to safeguard vulnerable individuals and preserve social harmony.  Critics, however, contend that such laws restrict personal freedom of belief and create administrative hurdles for individuals who voluntarily choose to change their religion.  

There have been reported cases in which complaints filed by third parties, rather than by the alleged victim, turned out to be baseless and, at times, malicious. In a significant judgment involving the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 in Fatehpur, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra quashed five First Information Reports.  The Court cautioned that “the criminal law cannot be allowed to be made a tool of harassment of innocent persons,” warning against prosecutions initiated on the basis of wholly unreliable material.

Civil society organisations, eminent jurists, and commentators across faiths have raised concerns regarding the potential misuse of broadly worded statutory provisions. At the same time, authorities in states where such laws operate maintain that enforcement actions are undertaken strictly in accordance with statutory mandates and remain subject to judicial oversight.

These competing perspectives underline the importance of precision and balance in legislative design. Clear definitions of what constitutes coercion or unlawful inducement, the requirement of credible evidence, and transparent procedures can reduce the possibility of misuse. Moreover, introducing provisions that impose proportionate penalties when complaints are made in bad faith, will further reinforce public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the law.

India’s constitutional framework offers clear guidance. The Preamble affirms the nation’s commitment to secularism, equality, and liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship. Article 25 guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion. Article 19 protects freedom of expression, while Article 21 safeguards personal liberty, including the freedom to choose one’s faith.  The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 affirming that matters of belief, identity, and conscience fall within a protected sphere of individual liberty in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.

Judicial precedent has also recognised the autonomy of adults in matters of faith and belief. In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., the Supreme Court emphasised that the Constitution guarantees individuals the freedom to choose their faith and life partner without undue interference from the State or society.

Any legislation concerning religious conversion must therefore operate within these constitutional parameters. The law must apply uniformly across communities and ensure that no faith tradition is either advantaged or disadvantaged. While the State has a legitimate role in preventing coercion or fraud, it must exercise that responsibility in a manner that does not intrude on an individual’s autonomy of belief or impose undue burdens on voluntary religious conversion.

The addition of a provision in the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill stating that if a “blood relative” of a person seeking to convert files a complaint alleging that the conversion is unlawful (through force, fraud, or inducement) the police must register a First Information Report and initiate an investigation, risks opening the door to third-party interventions in deeply personal decisions concerning one’s faith.

As Maharashtra’s proposed legislation moves through further stages of review and consultation, lawmakers have an opportunity to draw from the experiences of other states where such laws have sometimes produced unintended consequences, including communal tensions. Judicial pronouncements on questions of religious freedom, personal liberty, and state regulation offer valuable guidance.

A carefully drafted law – supported by clear evidence, guided by constitutional principles, and accompanied by appropriate safeguards – can address concerns about coercion while preserving the freedoms that lie at the heart of India’s democratic framework.

Ultimately, legislation that balances public order with individual liberty is more likely to inspire public trust and strengthen social harmony. Transparent debate, careful drafting, and adherence to constitutional values will be essential to ensuring that any such law serves the broader goals of justice, liberty, and equality. 

* Auxiliary Bishop, Archdiocese of Bombay

• india
• maharashtra
• archdiocese of bombay
• bishop dominic savio fernandes
• maharashtra freedom of religion bill
• forced conversions