Key Points
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill 2026 criminalises religious conversions carried out through coercion, fraud, inducement, or marriage, with penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment and fines up to ₹5 lakh.
The law introduces stringent procedural and enforcement mechanisms, including a mandatory 60-day prior notice to authorities, post-conversion verification, burden of proof on the accused, and provisions allowing third parties to initiate complaints.
The Bill has drawn criticism from Opposition leaders and civil society, who argue it infringes on privacy, personal liberty, and freedom of religion, and could be misused against interfaith couples and minority communities.
The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly passed the Dharma Swatantrya Abhiniyam 2026, or the Freedom of Religion Bill 2026, introducing stringent provisions to regulate religious conversions and penalise those deemed unlawful. The legislation, cleared by voice vote on 16 March 2026, seeks to prohibit conversions carried out through coercion, fraud, inducement, or marriage, and has sparked debate over its implications for religious freedom and personal liberty.
Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who also holds the Home portfolio, defended the law in the Assembly, stating that it is not directed against any particular religion and is intended solely to prevent forced or fraudulent conversions. He said the legislation is consistent with Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to profess and practise religion, but does not include the right to convert another person through coercion or misrepresentation.
The Bill defines “unlawful conversion as conversion from one religion to another using allurement, coercion, deceit, force, misrepresentation, threat, undue influence or any other fraudulent step, including brainwashing through the medium of education.”
It introduces strict penalties for violations. Individuals found guilty of unlawful conversion on the pretext of marriage face imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine of ₹1 lakh. Offences involving minors, women, persons of unsound mind, or individuals belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes attract the same jail term with higher fines of up to ₹5 lakh. Mass conversions are punishable with seven years’ imprisonment and a ₹5 lakh fine, while repeat offenders may face up to 10 years in jail.
The legislation also lays out procedural requirements for conversion. Individuals intending to change their religion must provide prior notice of around 60 days to the district magistrate. Authorities may then verify whether the conversion is voluntary. A declaration must also be submitted within 21 days after conversion, failing which the conversion could be deemed invalid.
Defending these provisions, Minister of State for Home Pankaj Bhoyar said the notice requirement is intended to ensure transparency and protect individuals from coercion. He added that allowing relatives or others to file complaints in suspected cases of forced conversion is necessary because victims may not always be able to approach authorities themselves. The law also allows police to take action in certain cases.
The Bill further includes provisions related to marriage and children. Marriages conducted for the purpose of unlawful conversion may be declared void by a court. In such cases, a child born from the marriage would be deemed to follow the religion of the mother prior to conversion. The legislation also provides for maintenance and custody rights for affected individuals.
The government has justified the need for such a law by citing concerns over increasing instances of forced or fraudulent conversions and their potential to disturb public order. It has also pointed out that several states, including Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and Odisha, have enacted similar laws in recent years.
See Also: Supreme Court Consolidates All Pleas to Stay Anti-Conversion Laws – Seeks Replies from States
At the same time, the Bill has generated political divisions within the state. Shiv Sena (UBT) supported the legislation, with MLA Bhaskar Jadhav stating that it aims to protect religious freedom and prevent unethical practices. Party chief Uddhav Thackeray also backed the measure, saying that while freedom of religion must be preserved, conversions carried out through force or exploitation should be opposed.
However, the Congress, NCP (SP), and Samajwadi Party opposed the Bill, raising concerns about its constitutional validity and potential misuse. Several Opposition legislators argued that the requirement for prior notice violates the right to privacy and could expose individuals to social pressure or threats. Congress MLA Aslam Shaikh said religion is a personal matter and questioned why individuals should be required to publicly declare their intention to convert.
Opposition leaders also criticised provisions that place the burden of proof on the accused to demonstrate that a conversion was voluntary. Some warned that the law could disproportionately affect interfaith couples and minority communities. Concerns were also raised about the possibility of vigilantism and misuse of legal provisions by third parties, pointing to provisions allowing relatives or others to file complaints, which could enable social interference in private choices.
Civil society organisations have echoed similar concerns. Critics argue that the law expands state surveillance into personal decisions related to faith and relationships, transforming religious conversion into a regulated administrative process. Activists have further pointed to vague language used in the legislation allowing for misuse and misinterpretation.
Arguments have also been made about strict punitive actions prescribed under the Bill and broad definition of terms used. Here, the term ‘allurement’, for example, has been expanded to include any form of glorification of one religion over another. Similarly, the inclusion of ‘educational’ influence can be used to target religious institutions.
The Bill is part of a broader national trend of anti-conversion legislation. Several states have enacted similar laws over the past decade, often framed around preventing forced conversions or addressing concerns related to interfaith marriages.
At the same time, such laws have faced legal challenges. Petitions filed before the Supreme Court have questioned whether anti-conversion statutes violate fundamental rights, including freedom of conscience, personal liberty, and privacy. The Court is currently examining these issues in cases involving multiple states.
Earlier in March 2026, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) had flagged the expansion and increasing stringency of anti-conversion laws in India. This underlies part of the commission’s argument to designate India as a “country of particular concern” (CPC) under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA). The Ministry of External Affairs rejected this assertion.
The debate around the Maharashtra law reflects a broader constitutional question: the balance between preventing coercion and safeguarding individual autonomy. While the government maintains that the legislation is necessary to protect citizens and maintain law and order, critics argue that its provisions risk undermining the very freedoms it seeks to regulate.
With the Bill now passed in the Assembly and expected to move through the Legislative Council, its implementation and potential legal scrutiny are likely to shape the next phase of the debate on religious freedom and state authority in India.
[DS]
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store