Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine the constitutional validity of anti-religious conversion laws enacted by 12 States, amid concerns raised by Christian organisations that these statutes encourage vigilante violence against religious minorities.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued notices to the Union Government through the Ministry of Law and Justice, as well as to the governments of Himachal Pradesh, Odisha, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Arunachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand and Rajasthan.
During the hearing, senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the National Council of Churches in India (NCCI), argued that the structure of these laws effectively emboldens vigilante groups. She submitted that the provisions create incentives for false complaints, leading to arrests even in the absence of any genuine offence.
“These Acts are framed in a manner that rewards such actions. Even where there is no case, a complaint can be made and a person can be arrested,” Arora told the court, urging it to stay the operation of the laws.
Responding on behalf of the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta rejected the petitioners’ claims, calling them “not factually correct”. He said the issue was already settled by a Constitution Bench judgment and that the government would place its response on record.
Mehta referred to the Supreme Court’s 1977 verdict in Rev. Stainislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh, in which a five-judge Bench upheld the constitutionality of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967.
In that ruling, the court held that the right to “propagate” religion under Article 25 of the Constitution did not include the right to convert another person. It clarified that propagation meant the dissemination of religious beliefs and tenets, not the act of conversion itself.
The Constitution Bench further reasoned that there was no fundamental right to convert another individual, emphasising that freedom of religion applies equally to all faiths. Any attempt to convert someone, as distinct from sharing religious teachings, would interfere with the freedom of conscience guaranteed to every citizen.
Article 25(1) of the Constitution provides all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
However, the court also took note of its later judgment in the 2018 Shafin Jahan case, which underscored the primacy of individual autonomy. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that choices relating to faith and belief, like decisions on marriage, fall squarely within the personal domain where individual freedom must prevail.