Rajasthan’s Bill Against Unlawful Religious Conversions

The Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025 was introduced by Rajasthan to prevent forced religious conversions.

• Rajasthan’s earlier anti-conversion bills (2006, 2008, 2013-18) were not enacted, leading to 2017 High Court guidelines on forced conversions.

Need for Introducing the Bill

• Balancing Religious Freedom: The individual right to freedom of conscience and religion does not include a collective right to proselytize(convert or attempt to convert someone from one religion)
• Addressing Fraudulent Conversions: The government cites recent cases of conversions through fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, and allurement.
• Social Concerns: There are concerns over conversions of tribals and marginalised communities and alleged cases of “love jihad.”

Key Provisions of the Bill

• Definition of Unlawful Conversion: Under the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025, unlawful conversion mainly refers to religious conversion through coercion, force, allurement or fraud, with allurement including cash, material benefits, employment, free education, etc.
  • The Bill states that marriages for the “sole purpose of unlawful conversion or vice-versa” will be declared void.
• Burden of Proof Reversal: The accused must prove that the conversion was voluntary and not due to coercion, fraud, or allurement.
  • This is a departure from the legal principle of presumed innocence.
• FIRs can be lodged by: Any aggrieved person, his/her parents, brother, sister, or any other person who is related to him/her by blood, marriage or adoption may lodge a FIR.
  • All offenses are cognizable (police can arrest without a warrant) and non-bailable.

• Procedure for Voluntary Conversions: Voluntary conversions require a detailed process, including a 60-day prior declaration to the District Magistrate (DM), police inquiry, and mandatory confirmation before the DM within 21 days. 
  • Violations attract penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment and fines up to ₹25,000.

About Unlawful Religious Conversions

• Unlawful Religious Conversion refers to conversions carried out through prohibited means such as coercion, fraud, or material inducement. 
  • According to the various Judicial Pronouncements, forceful religious conversion is against the basic Fundamental Rights of the Indian Constitution. 

Key Supreme Court Judgments on Religious Conversion

• Punjabrao Vs DP Meshram (1965): Declared that a public declaration of conversion is sufficient proof of professing a new religion.
• Rev Stainislaus Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1977): This judgement upheld anti-conversion laws, ruling that Article 25 does not grant a right to convert others but only to propagate one’s faith.
  • Established that conversion is not a fundamental right.
• Sarla Mudgal Vs Union of India (1995) & Lily Thomas Vs Union of India (2000):
  • Ruled that conversion to Islam solely for polygamy is invalid.
  • Emphasized that Religion cannot be exploited for personal gain.
• M Chandra Vs M Thangamuthu (2010): Established the need to prove both conversion and acceptance into the new religious community.
• Graham Staines Case (2011): Stated that forced conversions through coercion, incitement, or deception are unjustifiable.
• Right to Privacy Judgment (2017):
  • Affirmed that the right to choose and express one’s religion is protected under Article 25.
  • Asserted that state intervention must be proportionate to the necessity.
• The Supreme Court has yet to provide a definitive ruling on the legal interpretation of “propagate.

Issues Associated with Anti-Conversion Laws in India

• Ambiguous Terminology: Terms like “force,” “inducement,” and “allurement” are often undefined, leading to broad interpretations and potential misuse.
• Violation of Fundamental Rights: It is argued that these laws may impose a blanket restriction on an individual’s right to choose or change their faith.
• Gendered Implications: Many anti-conversion laws link religious conversion to marriage, reinforcing narratives like “love jihad.” 
  • This places additional scrutiny on interfaith marriages, particularly targeting women’s agency in choosing their partners and faith.
• Contradiction with International Religious Protections: Criminalising conversions violates Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which uphold the right to adopt a religion of choice.
• Targeting Minority Communities: These laws are often seen as disproportionately affecting religious minorities, particularly Christians and Muslims, by restricting religious activities.
• Presumption of Guilt and Burden of Proof: The onus of proving that a conversion is voluntary often falls on the individual converting or the person facilitating the conversion, reversing the standard principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has upheld anti-conversion laws, provided they do not violate an individual’s right to freedom of religion. 

• Therefore, it is crucial to balance safeguarding individual freedoms while preventing forced or fraudulent conversions to ensure the protection of everyone’s rights.