Several Indian States have enacted anti-conversion laws. However, data reveals a large gap between arrests and convictions, raising concerns about misuse and conflict with constitutional freedoms.

Background

• Uttar Pradesh as a Case Study (2021–2024): Uttar Pradesh implemented a strict Anti-Conversion Law in 2021 to curb forceful or fraudulent conversions.
• Arrest–Conviction Gap: From 2021 to August 2024, 835 criminal cases were registered, and 1,682 people were arrested under the law. However, fewer than 12 convictions occurred, indicating that most cases do not stand legal scrutiny.
• Misuse and Criminalization: The stark difference between arrests and convictions shows the law may be used as a tool of harassment rather than justice.
• Expansion Across States: Nine states now have similar laws, and in states such as Uttarakhand and Rajasthan, punishment may extend up to life imprisonment for alleged forceful conversions.

Constitutional Framework- “Article 25”

• Freedom of Religion: Article 25 gives every person the right to Profess, Practice, and Propagate religion freely.
• Scope of Propagation: The right to propagate applies to sharing knowledge or preaching one’s faith but not to forcibly converting others.

Landmark Case- Rev. Stanislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977)

• Argument Presented: Missionaries argued that propagating faith includes a right to convert others.
• Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court held that propagation means persuasion, not conversion. The Court clarified that there is no fundamental right to convert another person.

Major Problems with Modern Anti-Conversion Laws

• Vague Terminology: Terms such as lure are not clearly defined. If a religious institution offers free food, education, or welfare, it can be misinterpreted as “luring” someone to convert.
• Reversal of Burden of Proof: Normally, the principle is “Innocent until proven guilty”.
  Under these laws, the accused must prove they are innocent, creating a standard of “Guilty until proven innocent”.
• State Intrusion into Privacy: Adults must notify the District Magistrate (DM) 60 days in advance before conversion, triggering a police inquiry to verify its genuineness — a provision critics say violates the Right to Privacy.
• Vigilantism: The law allows any person, not just the affected individual, to file a complaint. This encourages fringe groups or strangers to interfere in private matters and fuels vigilantism.

Impact of The Anti Conversion Laws

• Chilling Effect: Fear of legal action discourages individuals from exercising legitimate religious freedom.
• Targeting Interfaith Couples: Interfaith couples face police scrutiny, harassment, and social hostility, making marital choice legally risky.
• Supreme Court Review: The Supreme Court is currently examining the law in Citizenship for Justice and Peace vs. State of UP, for violation of Right to Equality (Article 14), Right to Privacy and Personal Liberty (Article 21), and Freedom of Religion (Article 25).
• Recent Supreme Court Action: The Supreme Court recently quashed five FIRs in Fatehpur (UP), calling them harassment based on unreliable complaints.
• Basic Structure Challenge: The question before the Court is that do these laws violate Secularism, a core principle of the Basic Structure Doctrine?

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Conclusion

For a democratic and secular India, freedom of conscience must be safeguarded, not surveilled. The wide arrest–conviction gap highlights misuse; laws should target coercion, not voluntary faith or interfaith choice, upholding constitutional liberty and secularism.

DOWNLOAD PDF