Maharashtra | Conversion, a criminal offence

In a majoritarian turn that follows a long template, Maharashtra has become India’s 13th state to enact an anti-conversion law. On March 16, the Devendra Fadnavis government approved a bill that criminalises change of faith in a wide variety of contexts. Its terms echo those set by its precursors: conversions would be deemed illegal if induced by allurements, misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion and the like. But critics say the law raises fears of a greater range of extra-legal misuse as well as a deeper ingress by the law into fundamental rights—of choice, privacy and equality.

The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, widens the meaning of ‘allurement’. It tags the usual culprits: material offers or temptation in the form of gifts, money, employment, free education, better lifestyle or promise to marry get tagged. To that, it adds non-material means: divine healing, glorifying one religion over another et al. Under “unlawful conversions”, it lists “brainwashing through medium of education”, a phrase red-flagged by many critics. Not only can a deemed victim’s parents, siblings or loosely defined relatives by ties of blood, marriage or adoption file an FIR, even police officers can take suo motu cognisance of conversions. Not only would a marriage solemnised with the ‘sole purpose’ of conversion be null and void, any child born out of such a marriage would belong to the mother’s original religion.

ADVANCE WARNING

The law also mandates one of the strictest notice requirements in the country. Anyone wishing to convert must give 60 days’ prior notice as also a post-conversion declaration within 21 days to the district magistrate, who in turn shall notify it and call for suggestions and objections. The latter can bring on a police inquiry. Any violations would be non-bailable, attracting punishments of up to 10 years in jail and Rs 7 lakh fine.

The bill produced interesting political reactions. The Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) broke ranks with its Opposition partners in the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) to back it—choosing to burnish its Hindutva credentials openly after a phase of drift that saw minority voters close ranks with it. The NCP backed the bill as part of the ruling Mahayuti, but its leaders were guarded. “Any conversion on grounds of conviction cannot be opposed,” said Idris Naikwadi, NCP MLC. Fellow party MLC Amol Mitkari, too, warned about possible misuse.

Fadnavis said the law—drawing on state laws enacted since 1968—was not “targeted at any religion”. What he cast as a protective armature, activists call a virtual state veto on inter-faith marriages as well as a Damocles’ sword dangled on Muslims using the ‘love jihad’ bogey—Abu Azmi of the Samajwadi Party says its only purpose would be “to trouble and oppress the minorities”.

Civil society groups see in the law an intrusive regulation of personal choices. Shamsuddin Tamboli of the Muslim Satyashodhak Mandal notes its friction with a variety of constitutional guarantees, and warns that it would enable vigilantism. Noorjehan Safia Niaz, co-founder, Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, calls it a “problematic” trespass onto personal spaces.

Advocate Lara Jesani, national secretary, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, warns that its target base goes beyond Muslims. “The law will target the right to choice of women and the right of the young to choose their partners,” she says, adding that Dalits, tribals and minorities would be targeted by the Hindu right-wing. The government, she said, had failed to present data on conversions to show such “draconian provisions” were even needed.