The Maharashtra government’s new anti-conversion legislation has come under legal scrutiny, with petitions before the Bombay High Court questioning whether several provisions of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026 are consistent with fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The law, officially titled the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, was enacted after receiving presidential assent and was brought into force in August. It seeks to prevent unlawful religious conversions allegedly carried out through force, fraud, coercion, deceit or inducement. The legislation also introduces procedures relating to proposed religious conversions and provides for criminal penalties in cases covered by the Act.
Challenge to the Definition of ‘Allurement’
One of the key concerns raised against the legislation relates to the definition of “allurement” under Section 2(a). The Act defines allurement broadly and includes several forms of alleged inducement, including gifts, material benefits, employment, free education, a promise to marry, better lifestyle and divine healing.
The provision also covers portraying the practices or rituals of one religion in a detrimental manner in comparison with another religion, as well as glorifying one religion over another. Petitioners have argued that such broad language could create uncertainty about what conduct may ultimately attract criminal proceedings.
The Act’s definition itself shows how wide the provision is. It covers not only direct financial or material benefits but also employment, education, marriage-related promises and certain forms of religious expression.
Questions Over Individual Choice
The legal challenge also raises broader constitutional questions concerning an individual’s freedom to decide matters of faith and personal relationships. Petitioners contend that an adult’s decision to follow a particular religion or choose a spouse should ordinarily remain within the protection of personal liberty, subject to restrictions that meet constitutional standards.
The argument is particularly significant because the Maharashtra law does not deal only with physical force or fraudulent conversion. Its provisions extend to different forms of alleged inducement and prescribe procedures and penalties in connection with religious conversion.
A separate petition before the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench has already challenged the constitutional validity of the 2026 Act and several of its provisions, including requirements relating to prior notice, public disclosure, penalties, burden of proof and complaints by third parties. The petition invokes Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21 and 25 of the Constitution.
Law Already in Force
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act was passed by the state legislature in March 2026 and subsequently received presidential assent. The Act was notified in July and came into force on August 1, 2026.
Its implementation has already resulted in police cases. Pune city police registered the first cases under the new legislation shortly after it came into force, including a case involving an allegation that a young man attempted to persuade a minor partner to convert. Another case was registered against a UK national and OCI cardholder over alleged attempts to induce people to embrace Christianity at religious gatherings.
The early use of the law has added to the significance of the constitutional challenges because courts may now have to examine not only the wording of the statute but also how its provisions are being applied by authorities.
Constitutional Debate Likely to Continue
The central issue before the courts is not whether forced or fraudulent religious conversion can be prohibited. The more difficult constitutional question is where the line should be drawn between preventing unlawful conversion and protecting an individual’s freedom of conscience and personal choice.
Petitioners challenging the legislation argue that vague or excessively broad provisions can create the possibility of misuse and may have a chilling effect on legitimate religious activity and private decisions. The state, on the other hand, maintains the legislative objective of preventing unlawful conversions and protecting individuals from coercion, fraud and inducement.
The Bombay High Court’s consideration of these challenges could therefore have implications beyond the individual petitions. The proceedings may help clarify how far state governments can go in regulating voluntary religious conversion while remaining within the constitutional protections of equality, liberty, privacy and freedom of conscience.
For now, the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026 remains in force, while its constitutional validity and the interpretation of several provisions are being tested through judicial proceedings.
Journalist: Vijay Singh