– Dr. M. Iqbal Siddiqui
On February 4, 2025, the Rajasthan government tabled the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025 (Vidhiviruddh Dharma Samparivartan Pratishedh Vidheyak – 2025), making it the 12th Indian state to propose such legislation, alongside Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Karnataka. Now, in September 2025, Chief Minister Bhajan Lal Sharma’s administration withdrew this draft, replacing it with a stricter version approved by the state cabinet on August 31, 2025 and introduced during the Monsoon Session of the Rajasthan Assembly. Framed as a measure to curb conversions by “force, fraud, allurement, or marriage,” the revised Bill escalates state control over personal faith, criminalises interfaith marriages, and subjects religious choice to invasive bureaucratic scrutiny. With cognisable and non-bailable offences, it enables arrests without warrants and complicates bail, inviting harassment on mere suspicion.
This is not Rajasthan’s first attempt to police faith. In 2006, under Governor Shmt. Pratibha Patil, the Rajasthan Dharma Swatantrata Vidheyak 2006, faced condemnation for undermining constitutional rights but faltered in implementation. The 2025 Bill, with harsher penalties and a broader scope, revives this flawed agenda, threatening individual liberty, secularism, and India’s constitutional framework.
Constitutional Violations
Fundamental Rights under Articles 25-28
Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees “freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion.” Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clarified during Constituent Assembly debates that “propagation” entails sharing beliefs, not coercion. Yet, the revised Bill mandates a 60-day prior declaration to the District Magistrate for conversions (Section 8), followed by police enquiries into the “real intention” of the act. Post-conversion declarations are required (Section 9), with non-compliance rendering conversions “illegal and void.” This contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), which deemed freedom of conscience absolute in matters of belief, and Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), which protected voluntary conversions while allowing restrictions on coercion.
Secularism as a Basic Structure
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court declared secularism a cornerstone of the Constitution’s basic structure, mandating state neutrality across religions. However, Section 3(2) exempts reconversions to one’s “original ancestral religion” (termed “ghar wapsi”) from scrutiny, implicitly favouring majoritarian faiths and violating Article 14’s guarantee of equality. Legal scholar A.G. Noorani described such measures as a “subterfuge against secularism,” liquidating the state’s obligation to remain impartial.
Privacy and Marriage under Article 21
Section 6 voids interfaith marriages deemed to be for the “sole purpose” of unlawful conversion, enforceable by family courts, clashing with the right to marry a partner of one’s choice, upheld in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) as part of Article 21’s personal liberty. The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) judgement recognised privacy and autonomy as integral to dignity. By subjecting faith and marriage to bureaucratic oversight, the Bill undermines these constitutional protections.
Legal Ambiguities and Flaws
Overbroad Definitions: The Bill defines “allurement” to include gifts, education, employment, or promises of a “better lifestyle.” These vague terms risk criminalising routine charitable acts, creating uncertainty and stifling welfare work by religious institutions.
Reconversion Exemption: By exempting reconversions, the Bill introduces a discriminatory double standard, privileging majoritarian faiths and breaching Article 14’s equality principle. This provision fuels perceptions of bias, undermining the law’s legitimacy.
Reversal of Burden of Proof: Section 12 shifts the burden onto the accused to prove a conversion was lawful, contradicting the presumption of innocence and Article 21’s fair trial protections. This invites arbitrary enforcement and harassment.
Conflict with Central Legislation: Section 6’s nullification of marriages conflicts with the Special Marriage Act, 1954, a secular law governing interfaith unions, creating legal inconsistencies and challenging parliamentary authority.
Stricter Penalties in the Revised Bill
The revised Bill, tabled in September 2025, introduces harsher penalties, as outlined by Law Minister Jogaram Patel:
- General Unlawful Conversion: 7-14 years’ imprisonment and a minimum fine of ₹5 lakh (previously 1–5 years and ₹15,000).
- Conversions Involving Minors, Women, SC/ST, or Disabled Persons: 10–20 years’ imprisonment and a minimum fine of ₹10 lakh, with a new provision for disabled persons.
- Mass Conversions: 20 years to life imprisonment with a minimum fine of ₹25 lakh.
- Conversions Using Foreign or Illegal Funds: 10–20 years’ imprisonment and a minimum fine of ₹20 lakh.
- Crimes Involving Fear, Force, or Marriage Promises: 20 years to life imprisonment with a minimum fine of ₹30 lakh.
- Repeat Offences: Life imprisonment and a fine of ₹50 lakh.
- Institutional Penalties: Organisations face cancellation of registration, withdrawal of state grants, and potential property confiscation or demolition.
Empirical Realities and the Myth of Forced Conversions
The narrative of widespread forced conversions lacks evidence. The Pew Research Centre Report (2021) shows high religious continuity: 99% of Hindus, 97% of Muslims, and 94% of Christians remain within their faiths, with interfaith marriages rare (99% of Hindus, 98% of Muslims, 95% of Christians marry within their communities). This debunks claims of mass proselytization, suggesting the Bill addresses a fabricated issue driven by political motives.
Patterns of Misuse Across States
Anti-conversion laws in states like Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat have been weaponised to target minorities and interfaith couples, often under the baseless “Love Jihad” narrative. Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) has documented how such laws:
- Harass interfaith couples, portraying unions as religious conspiracies.
- Criminalise minority-led charity as “allurement,” targeting Christians and Muslims.
- Undermine women’s autonomy, justifying control under the guise of protection.
Section 4, allowing relatives to file FIRs, entrenches patriarchal and casteist control, while Section 13 shields officials acting “in good faith,” granting impunity for arbitrary actions.
Societal Impacts
The Bill’s consequences are far-reaching. It erodes liberty by making religious choice subject to state approval, reducing faith to a matter of bureaucratic oversight.
As Upendra Baxi observes, laws that impose surveillance over belief undermine constitutional freedoms by subordinating citizens to arbitrary control. It also deepens communal polarisation by invoking the baseless “Love Jihad” narrative, stoking suspicion against minorities and legitimising vigilantism.
As Subramanian Swamy has noted, legislation rooted in communal rhetoric only exacerbates divisions and weakens national unity.
Equally troubling is the chilling effect on charity: the Bill’s vague definition of “allurement” risks criminalising compassion, discouraging religious institutions from providing essential services like education and healthcare.
Gautam Bhatia warns that such overbroad provisions stifle work that sustains marginalised groups. Finally, the Bill invites judicial conflict. Its provisions contradict established rulings such as Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), making legal challenges inevitable. As Abhishek Manu Singhvi cautions, such legislative overreach, even if eventually struck down, inflicts serious damage through its enforcement in the interim.
Lessons from the 2006 Bill
The 2006 Rajasthan Dharma Swatantrata Bill was passed by the Assembly but did not receive assent from the then Governor Shmt. Pratibha Patil, who, later as President of India, again withheld approval. Widely condemned for violating religious freedom and carrying high potential for misuse, the Bill remained unenforced. The 2025 Bill’s revival of this approach disregards those constitutional lessons, placing political expediency above fundamental rights.
International Human Rights Violations
The Bill breaches India’s global commitments:
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 18: Guarantees freedom to adopt or change religion.
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), Article 18: Ratified by India in 1979, it prohibits coercion in religious choices.
- UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 22 (1993): Clarifies that the right to change religion cannot face undue restrictions.
By criminalising voluntary conversions, the Bill undermines India’s standing as a pluralistic democracy.
Democratic Implications
The Bill’s expansion of state control over personal belief signals a drift toward authoritarianism, subordinating individual choice to state and communal prejudices. This threatens the republican promise of liberty, making it a national concern.
Current Status and Opposition
As of 1 September 2025, the revised Bill is under debate in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly’s Monsoon Session, having passed the Assembly in February 2025 but requiring the Governor’s assent. Opposition parties, including Congress and the Bharat Adivasi Party, criticise it as a distraction from issues like inflation, arguing it stokes communal tensions. CJP and other groups are poised to challenge it legally, citing violations of fundamental rights.
Resistance as a Constitutional Duty
The Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025, is not a safeguard against coercion but an assault on liberty. By conflating voluntary choice with fraud, privileging conversion to Hinduism, prescribing draconian penalties, and criminalising interfaith unions, it violates Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution. It perpetuates the baseless narrative of mass conversions, fuels communal division, and tarnishes India’s international reputation. In truth, it is a “subterfuge against secularism” that subordinates constitutional liberty to populist prejudice, eroding the very essence of equality, dignity, and freedom.
With its discriminatory provisions and chilling impact on personal choice, the Bill imperils India’s secular and democratic spirit. The lessons of the 2006 Rajasthan Dharma Swatantrata Bill, together with empirical data disproving myths of forced conversions, remind us that such legislation serves political ends rather than constitutional values. India’s constitutional order thrives on individual conscience and state neutrality – principles this Bill undermines. It must therefore be resisted, as a matter of national duty, to preserve the Constitution as a living beacon of liberty rather than reduce it to a hollow declaration.
Sources:
- The Wire (1 September 2025). “Rajasthan Govt to Introduce Stricter Anti-Conversion Bill in Ongoing Assembly Session.”
- The Tribune (31 August 2025). “Rajasthan Cabinet Approves Anti-Conversion Bill with Harsher Penalties.”
- Free Press Journal (1 September 2025). “Rajasthan’s New Anti-Conversion Bill: Stricter Norms, Higher Fines Approved.”
- Pew Research Centre Report (2021). “Religious Composition of India.” Provides data on religious continuity and interfaith marriage trends.
- Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP). Documentation on anti-conversion laws and their misuse across Indian states.
