Anti-conversion laws in India have been criticised for enabling vigilantism rather than protecting the vulnerable. Discuss with reference to recent legislative trends.

Q. Anti-conversion laws in India have been criticised for enabling vigilantism rather than protecting the vulnerable. Discuss with reference to recent legislative trends. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Since the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, over a dozen states have enacted "freedom of religion" laws [5]. While their stated aim is shielding the vulnerable from coerced conversion, the procedural architecture of the newer statutes has shifted the burden onto the convert, opening space for private policing of personal faith.

The recent legislative trend: a wider net, heavier penalties - The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026 (Bill 20 of 2026) [1], passed by the Assembly on 17 March 2026, bars conversion by coercion, fraud, inducement or marriage — punishable with 7 years' imprisonment, rising to ₹5 lakh fine where a woman, minor, SC/ST or person of unsound mind is involved, and 10 years for repeat offenders [2]. - It follows the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 template — now replicated by Rajasthan (2025) and Chhattisgarh (2026) — marking a move from simple prohibition to advance regulation of belief [5].

Why the vigilantism critique carries weight - Third-party complaints: an FIR may be lodged not only by the aggrieved person but by parents, siblings or any relative by blood, marriage or adoption [3] — displacing the adult convert's own consent and straining Article 21 autonomy. - Reversed burden of proof places the onus of lawfulness on the convertor [3], inverting criminal-law presumption. - 60 days' prior notice to the District Magistrate [3] converts a private choice into a public disclosure, exposing interfaith couples to familial and community pressure. - Inclusion of "marriage" as a prohibited mode has, in practice, drawn interfaith couples rather than trafficking-style coercion into the net; minority bodies and civil society objected to Maharashtra's Bill moving without prior public consultation.

The protective rationale - Rev. Stainislaus v. State of MP (1977) held that the right to propagate under Article 25 does not include a right to convert, upholding state competence over public order [4]. - Genuine allurement of poor, tribal and minor populations remains a real harm, justifying graded penalties.

The tension is not between faith and public order but between safeguards and surveillance. Narrowing offences to demonstrable force or fraud, removing third-party FIRs and the notice requirement, and mandating senior-officer sanction before arrest would preserve the protective core while restoring Article 25's promise of freedom of conscience.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026 — Bill 20 of 2026, PRS Legislative Research — Bill number, title and scope 2. Maharashtra Assembly passes Freedom of Religion Bill 2026 — News on AIR (Prasar Bharati) — date of passage, prohibited modes and penalty tiers 3. The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, PRS Legislative Research — 60-day prior notice, relatives as complainants, reversed burden of proof 4. Rev. Stainislaus vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (17 January 1977) — propagation does not include a right to convert; state legislative competence 5. Anti-Conversion Legislation: Comparison of the UP Ordinances with other state laws, PRS Blog — spread of state laws since 1967 and the common statutory template