Changing Faith Is Not the Same as Forcing Conversion: The Constitutional Limits of Anti-Conversion Laws

Can the State protect a person from being forced to change religion without taking control of that person's voluntary choice? That is the central constitutional question in India's anti-conversion debate. It cannot be answered by saying either that religious freedom is unlimited or that every conversion is inherently suspect.

The Supreme Court has upheld legislation prohibiting conversion through prohibited means. It has also protected adult autonomy in matters of faith and marriage and recognised privacy as a fundamental right. These principles must be applied together, with attention to the particular provision being challenged. This article explains four important Supreme Court decisions and uses Uttar Pradesh's legislation to identify the practical constitutional questions. It is not a claim that the Court has finally upheld or invalidated every contemporary State enactment.

What Article 25 protects

Article 25(1) protects conscience and religious profession, practice and propagation, subject to public order, morality, health and the other fundamental rights. The freedom of both the speaker and the listener matters. [Source 1, Article 25(1).]

Rev. Stainislaus: what the Supreme Court actually upheld

In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a five-judge Bench examined Madhya Pradesh's 1968 and Orissa's 1967 conversion laws.

The Supreme Court distinguished spreading religious tenets from a fundamental right to convert another person. It upheld prohibitions on force, fraud and allurement or inducement, accepting State competence under Entry 1, List II: public order. The Madhya Pradesh challenges failed; the Orissa High Court's contrary judgment was reversed. [Source 2, PDF pages 3–7.]

The decision must not be reduced to approval of every later restriction. It concerned particular enactments. Whether a newer notice requirement or marriage-related provision is constitutionally valid requires examination of that measure, not merely repetition of the case name.

Shafin Jahan: a court could not annul an adult's chosen marriage in habeas corpus proceedings

In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., Hadiya's father approached the Kerala High Court, which annulled her marriage while dealing with a habeas corpus petition—a proceeding concerned with unlawful detention. Hadiya was an adult who affirmed her choice.

The Supreme Court set aside that decision by its order of 8 March 2018; its reasons followed on 9 April 2018. Parental disagreement did not authorise the High Court to substitute its preference for hers. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud's concurring opinion explained the constitutional protection of decisions about faith and a life partner. It stated: “Social approval for intimate personal decisions is not the basis for recognising them.” [Source 3, majority paragraphs 27–30; concurring paragraphs 19–27.]

The Court nevertheless allowed lawful investigation of criminality, while excluding the marriage's validity from that investigation. The distinction is crucial: respecting an adult's decision does not prevent investigation of an independently established offence. Conversely, the existence of an investigation does not itself authorise annulment of the marriage through habeas corpus jurisdiction.

Puttaswamy: privacy requires justification for State intrusion

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, decided on 24 August 2017, nine judges addressed whether privacy enjoys constitutional protection. The Court recognised it as intrinsic to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and to the freedoms in Part III.

Justice Chandrachud's opinion for four judges explained that privacy protects personal intimacies, family, marriage and individual autonomy. It also made clear that privacy is not absolute. An interference must satisfy legality, a legitimate State aim and proportionality: there must be a lawful basis, a legitimate reason and a defensible relationship between the intrusion and its purpose. [Source 4, paragraph 180, conclusions 3(F)–(I), and the Order of the Court.]

This was not a judgment striking down an anti-conversion statute. Its relevance is the constitutional test available when a particular provision intrudes upon private decisions. Reliance on privacy therefore requires analysis of how the challenged provision operates, rather than an assumption that mentioning privacy defeats the law.

Navtej Singh Johar: constitutional rights do not depend on popularity

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, decided on 6 September 2018, concerned Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and consensual sexual conduct between adults. The Supreme Court invalidated the provision to the extent that it criminalised consensual sexual acts between competent adults in private. The decision did not invalidate anti-conversion legislation.

Its constitutional relevance lies in the rejection of social disapproval as a sufficient answer to fundamental rights. The opinion of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar emphasised protection of diversity and the rights even of a small minority. [Source 5, paragraph 253(v), (viii) and (xv).]

Applying that principle to religious choice is analysis, not the direct holding of Navtej. A convincing challenge must connect the actual restriction with the affected right. Equally, a defence of the restriction must establish its constitutional justification rather than rely only on public unease.

The specific provisions that make the debate practical

Uttar Pradesh provides a useful example, not a uniform national rule. Section 8 of its 2021 Act requires the intending convert's declaration at least sixty days in advance, a month's notice from the religious convertor and a police inquiry arranged by the District Magistrate. Section 9 requires a post-conversion declaration within sixty days, display at the office and personal appearance within twenty-one days of filing. Section 12 places the specified burden concerning prohibited means on the person causing or facilitating conversion. Section 6 concerns marriages for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion, or vice versa. [Source 6, Gazette pages 10–11.]

The 2024 amendment substituted Sections 4, 5 and 7. Section 4 permits information from any person. Section 5(1)'s basic punishment became three to ten years with a minimum ₹50,000 fine; aggravated categories carry higher penalties. Section 7 provides Sessions trial, cognizable and non-bailable offences, and additional conditions where bail is opposed by the prosecutor. Thus, older summaries of complaint eligibility or punishment are unsafe. [Source 6, amending Gazette pages 4–5.]

Why notice, disclosure and proof deserve separate scrutiny

The following questions are editorial analysis of those mechanisms, not findings that these provisions have been struck down.

A notice system and an investigation into coercion do different things. An investigation can respond to an allegation of wrongdoing. A general notice system reaches a person who may allege no wrongdoing at all. The constitutional question is whether this broader interference is justified by the protective purpose, and whether a less intrusive way of checking genuine consent would serve it.

Disclosure also raises a separate question from verification. An authority may need information to discharge a lawful duty, but public exposure of intimate information calls for its own justification. Would confidential confirmation of an adult's choice address the same concern? What protections prevent information being used to threaten that person? These are concrete questions about design and consequences, not objections to preventing coercion.

A shifted burden of proof similarly demands precision. A lawyer must identify the statutory burden, the person on whom it falls and the factual connection alleged against that person. It is misleading to replace that exercise with the sweeping assertion that everyone accused is automatically guilty. It is equally inadequate to dismiss the constitutional concern without examining how the burden affects a real prosecution.

Marriage, religion and criminal allegations must not be collapsed into one issue

Three different questions can arise in the same dispute: whether the person freely chose a belief; whether the marriage satisfies the applicable marriage law; and whether someone committed a statutory offence. An answer to one does not necessarily answer the others.

For example, an allegation of pressure should be tested on evidence, not treated as proved because relatives dislike the relationship. Conversely, describing a relationship as voluntary does not itself resolve every statutory allegation against a third party. The decision-maker must identify the actual conduct alleged and the applicable provision.

That approach protects against two errors: treating religious difference as evidence of wrongdoing, and treating the language of autonomy as immunity for coercion. A serious legal analysis should resist both.

What a reader should take away

Before relying on a headline, ask which State's law applies, which version governed the alleged conduct, which section is invoked and what the cited court actually ordered. A bail order, an interim stay and a final constitutional judgment have different effects. This discussion of foundational Supreme Court decisions should not be used as a substitute for checking a later, case-specific order.

The constitutional debate is therefore not simply for or against conversion laws. It concerns whether each legal mechanism protects free choice or unnecessarily restricts it. Preventing force and fraud is a legitimate purpose; the means chosen to achieve it still require constitutional justification. An adult's conscience must remain central to that examination.

Sources

1. Constitution of India, Article 25(1), reproduced in the Supreme Court's judgment in Rev. Stainislaus, PDF page 5: https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/5403.pdf 2. Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 677; [1977] 2 SCR 611, decided 17 January 1977, PDF pages 3–7: https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/5403.pdf 3. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., Criminal Appeal 366/2018, operative order 8 March 2018; reasons 9 April 2018; majority paragraphs 27–30 and Chandrachud J.'s concurrence paragraphs 19–27: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/19702/19702_2017_Judgement_08-Mar-2018.pdf 4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 494/2012, nine-judge decision, 24 August 2017; Chandrachud J.'s opinion paragraph 180 and conclusions 3(F)–(I), PDF pages 254–255 and 263–264; Order of the Court, PDF page 546: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Judgement_24-Aug-2017.pdf 5. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) 76/2016, 6 September 2018; Misra CJI and Khanwilkar J.'s opinion paragraph 253(v), (viii) and (xv): https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf 6. Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, Sections 6, 8, 9 and 12; Amendment Act 7 of 2024, substituting Sections 4, 5 and 7; Gazettes dated 5 March 2021 and 6 August 2024, reproduced at: https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/acts_states/uttar-pradesh/2021/Act3of2021UP.pdf

This article is general legal information, not advice on an individual case. Applicable legislation and subsequent court orders should be checked before action is taken.

Copyright © C&C Law Chambers. All rights reserved.

#ConstitutionalLaw #ReligiousFreedom #SupremeCourt