The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses from multiple states on applications challenging the validity of their anti-conversion legislations, with petitioners contending that such laws are arbitrary, unconstitutional, and infringe upon the fundamental rights of individuals to choose and practice their faith.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing a batch of petitions questioning “freedom of religion” statutes enacted by Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka. The court granted the states four weeks to file their replies and listed the matter for further hearing after six weeks.
Senior advocate Chander Uday Singh, representing Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), highlighted that several states had tightened their laws, citing Uttar Pradesh’s 2024 amendment prescribing a minimum 20-year prison term—extendable to life—for “unlawful religious conversion through marriage.” He pointed out the introduction of “twin bail conditions” similar to those under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, provisions allowing third-party complaints, and enhanced penalties. Singh argued these measures had emboldened vigilante groups, resulting in harassment of interfaith couples and ordinary church congregations.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, for the National Federation of Indian Women, submitted that the laws disproportionately impacted women and minorities, necessitating their suspension.
Petitioners also noted that the Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh High Courts had stayed portions of their respective conversion laws, but the state governments had moved the Supreme Court against those interim orders, which now form part of the consolidated batch of cases.
The bench directed Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the states, to ensure that responses to the stay applications were filed on time. To streamline proceedings, the court appointed advocates Srishti Agnihotri and Ruchira Goel as nodal counsel for petitioners and respondents respectively, to prepare consolidated compilations.
At the same time, the bench de-tagged a public interest petition filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking a pan-India anti-conversion law, clarifying that the current hearings pertain only to state legislations.
The petitions have been pending since January 2020 when the then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud-led bench first issued notice. Later, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind sought transfer of 21 petitions pending before six high courts to the apex court for a uniform decision. Petitioners, including CJP and the National Federation of Indian Women, argue that the laws, though framed as “freedom of religion” statutes, in practice curtail fundamental rights and violate constitutional values such as secularism, dignity, fraternity, and privacy.
While the Centre has previously argued that such laws should be tested by respective high courts, petitioners insist that the common constitutional questions involved require authoritative adjudication by the Supreme Court.
The issue of religious conversion remains a politically charged and socially sensitive subject. State governments have defended the laws as safeguards against coercion, exploitation, and protection of vulnerable sections, particularly women and the economically disadvantaged. However, critics contend that provisions criminalising interfaith marriages and reversing the burden of proof violate constitutional guarantees and embolden vigilante action.
