The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion under Articles 25 to 28, which includes the right to profess, practice, propagate, and even convert to another religion of one’s choice. Provided such conversion is voluntary, without coercion, fraud, or undue influence. Over the past decade, however, several states have introduced anti-conversion laws (often termed "Freedom of Religion Acts" or "Love Jihad Laws"), ostensibly to prevent forced or fraudulent conversions.
In a recent development, the Uttarakhand cabinet has approved the Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2025 to the existing Act, by proposing harsh penalties and imprisonment for ‘forced religious conversions’ across the state of Uttarakhand. The Bill will now be tabled in the Assembly, where it will likely be passed.
The said amendment, and other such anti-conversion laws, has reignited a contentious debate on religious freedom, state overreach, and the politicisation of faith. The government claims the legislation, which mandates prior state approval for religious conversions, is aimed at preventing coercion and fraud. In reality, though, it dangerously blurs the line between regulation and repression.
By framing conversion as a suspicious act requiring bureaucratic permission, the law risks normalising surveillance over personal belief and deepening societal divisions. The question isn’t just about legality, but more about whether India’s secular democracy can afford to weaponise faith in the name of protecting it.
Expanded Definitions to Harsher Jail Term
The Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2025 proposes to amend the definition clause, especially the definition of ‘conversion’ which changes everything. According to the reports, the government has added a sub-clause/new clause that no person shall incite or conspire for such religious conversion by any means, including digital means.
Now, this is an open-ended definition because when a term ‘digital means’ is used, people can be arrested even for connecting on social media platform or even emails exchange can be a problem for some.
The amendment Bill also modifies certain offences, such as depicting the practices or ceremonies of any religion in a derogatory manner in comparison to another religion, and especially acts of glorifying one religion in opposition to another can also be penalised. It has been reported that offences like forced conversion would be a cognisable and non-bailable offence, which means that the police would be having power to arrest without a warrant that also puts many couples/individuals under the shelter of threat and misuse.
At the heart of the issue is the law’s vague wording, which leaves ample room for misuse. Terms like "allurement," "force," and "misrepresentation" are broadly defined, enabling subjective interpretations that could target even voluntary conversions or interfaith marriages.
It has been reported that the Bill also modifies the definition of a “victim” to include not just the individual allegedly forced to convert, but also their guardians and legal heirs—effectively allowing third parties to file complaints. In addition to this, shockingly, the law criminalises concealing one’s religion before marriage, punishable by 3-10 years in prison and a hefty fine. Even more alarming is the provision allowing the District Magistrate to seize property acquired through an alleged conversion-related offence.
If one goes through the Bill and the reports, the law reverses the burden of proof, requiring the accused to prove their innocence, which is a blatant violation of the foundational legal principle that presumes innocence until proven guilty.
That in addition to the above, penalties and punishments have been increased up to life imprisonment in severe offences. Such punishments are not proportional in nature, because in a period of 5 years, the increase in punishment without any data or proof is nothing but apprehension and on the basis of apprehension, the criminal law does not work. How many conversions were forced? How many convictions and most importantly how many false cases were filed?
2018 Act: It states that if a person commits and is convicted of forced conversion, then there is a prison term up to 5 years.
2022 Amendment: The amendment lifted and increased the punishment for forced conversions with a term not less than two years and extended to seven years and fine of Rs. 25,000 and if victim is a minor, woman, SC/ST, or person with disability, then up to 10 years and fine of Rs. 25,000
2025 Amendment Bill: The present amendment has proposed that forced/fraudulent conversion will attract imprisonment of three years and up to ten years and if victim is a minor, woman, SC/ST, or person with disability then up to 14 years and fine of 1 Lakh, and severe offences have been labeled with 20 years to life imprisonment and hefty fines up to 10 Lakh.
It has been recorded that twelve of India’s 28 states have anti-conversion laws as of February 2023: Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. Enforcement of these laws varies across different states.
The Uttar Pradesh government introduced the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance in November 2020, which was later enacted as a law in February 2021. The law mandates prior government approval for religious conversions and prescribes harsh penalties (up to 10 years imprisonment) for "forced" or "fraudulent" conversions, including those related to marriage.
The state of Uttarakhand had already passed a similar law, the Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018. Both states have been at the forefront of enforcing these laws, often targeting interfaith couples under the pretext of preventing "Love Jihad."
At the heart of the debate lies the tension between preventing forced conversions and protecting the constitutional right to religious freedom (Article 25). Historically, such laws have disproportionately targeted religious minorities, fuelling allegations of majoritarian bias.
Does this Bill genuinely safeguard vulnerable groups, or does it weaponise legal provisions to suppress religious diversity?
Ambiguity Leading to Misuse
The Bill’s failure to clearly define "forced conversion" or "allurement" leaves it open to subjective interpretation.
For instance, offering food or education as part of religious outreach could be construed as "inducement," enabling arbitrary arrests and now even digital means would be something that can be interpreted in many ways because we live in times when social media is the primary source of communication and if the term ‘digital means’ is used otherwise, then it will just add cherry to the rotten cake by arbitrary humiliating young couples and interfaith individuals.
One more aspect of the Bill, as discussed above, is the vague definition of “victim” which opens the door to rampant misuse, enabling harassment of interfaith couples by disapproving parents, community leaders, or extremist groups.
Since guardians and legal heirs are now classified as victims, parents who oppose their child’s marriage can weaponise the law to file frivolous complaints, dragging couples into prolonged legal battles.
Similarly, religious hardliners could exploit this provision to target interfaith relationships under the guise of preventing “fraudulent” conversions. This not only undermines personal autonomy but also emboldens vigilante interference in private lives.
By allowing third parties to dictate marital choices under the threat of criminal prosecution, the law effectively sanctions state-backed coercion, eroding the very freedoms it claims to protect.
Similar laws in other states, like Uttar Pradesh, have seen mass arrests of minority community members under flimsy pretexts. This ambiguity violates legal principles of clarity and proportionality, risking harassment of marginalised groups rather than protecting them.
There have many times when courts have upheld the idea of choice and privacy. In 2020, some former judges have criticised the anti-conversion laws and labeled it as ‘unconstitutional’. In a judgment, the Kerala High Court also held that right to marry is fundamental right and the question of choice rests with the individual.
Article 25 guarantees the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion—subject only to public order, morality, and health. By mandating state approval for conversions, the Bill effectively grants bureaucrats the power to veto personal faith choices, a clear overreach.
“When two adults marry out of their volition, they choose their path; they consummate their relationship; they feel that it is their goal and they have the right to do so,” said the Supreme Court in 2018.
No Conclusion Until the Court Decides
The petitions challenging many anti-conversion laws are pending before the Supreme Court, where it will consider if anti-conversion laws restrict the right to choice, privacy, personal liberty, marriage, and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and if anti-conversion laws violate the freedoms of religion and conscience under Article 25.
Despite pending challenges before the Supreme Court, the lack of interim relief has allowed these laws to persist, emboldening more states to adopt similar discriminatory measures. The Court’s delay in addressing their constitutionality risks normalising state interference in personal choices, contradicting India’s commitment to a liberal democracy.
To prevent a nationwide erosion of civil liberties, the judiciary must act decisively—striking down these laws before they further weaponise faith and fracture the pluralistic fabric of Indian society.
The Constitution’s promise of freedom is not merely textual; it must animate through judicial courage and citizen resistance against laws that replace autonomy with authoritarianism.
The anti-conversion laws in India not only infringe upon religious freedom but also violate the fundamental right to marry, as recognised by the Supreme Court in landmark judgments like Justice K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and Shafin Jahan v Ashokan KM. (2018). The Court has unequivocally held that the right to choose a life partner is intrinsic to personal liberty (Article 21) and religious freedom (Article 25), emphasising that matters of faith and marriage fall within an individual’s autonomous domain.
Similarly, in the case of Shaista Parveen @ Sangeeta & Anr vs State of UP & Ors, the Court reiterated that no one could disrupt the lives of two consenting adults.
“The Court has repeatedly held that where the two individuals, having attained the age of majority, are living together, nobody is entitled to interfere in their peaceful life,” the court said.
It is unfortunate that despite of the above mentioned rulings by the Supreme Court and many High Courts, these anti conversion laws exist and majorly it is used to target interfaith couples, particularly those converting to minority religion. Hence, by requiring the state’s approval for conversion tied marriages those are consensual, the law undermines constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination and erodes the foundational ideals of liberty and dignity enshrined in the Constitution.
In conclusion, Uttarakhand’s new Bill - to be tabled before the Assembly on 19 August for clearance - reflects a broader trend of weaponising faith under the guise of protection.
By expanding vague definitions, criminalising consensual choices, and reversing due process safeguards, the law crosses the line between safeguarding freedom and suppressing it. When viewed through the Constitutional lens, the Bill is unjust, erodes personal liberty, and undermines the pluralistic ethos of Indian democracy.
A more balanced approach is required—one that punishes genuine coercion without infringing upon voluntary religious choices. Until then, such legislation risks functioning less as a shield against exploitation and more as a tool of control.
(Areeb Uddin Ahmed is an advocate practising at the Allahabad High Court. He writes on various legal developments. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)