Examine the legal validity of state anti-conversion laws in India in light of Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court judgements.

Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health [5]. Twelve states — and now Maharashtra through its Freedom of Religion Act, 2026 [1] — restrict conversion. Their validity is settled in principle but increasingly contested in design.

Validity under Article 25: judicially affirmed

• In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), a Constitution Bench held that "propagate" means to transmit or spread one's tenets, and does not include a right to convert another; the MP and Odisha Acts were upheld [2].
• Conversion by force, fraud or allurement disturbs public order; states are competent under Entry 1, List II, and such prohibition is a reasonable restriction [5].

Strain on Article 21: autonomy and privacy

• K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) placed decisional autonomy over belief within the right to privacy under Article 21 [4]. A mandatory 60-day prior declaration to the District Magistrate before conversion subjects private faith to state scrutiny [1].
• Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) held that choice of faith and partner lies in the core zone of privacy, beyond family veto [3]. Allowing parents, siblings and relatives to complain, and voiding marriages linked to conversion, collides directly with this [1].

Article 14: vagueness and unequal effect

• Terms like "allurement" and "inducement" remain loosely defined, inviting arbitrary application and failing the manifest arbitrariness test.
• A reverse burden on the accused inverts ordinary criminal-law protection, while enhanced penalties keyed to women, minors and SC/STs, though protective in intent, treat adult women as incapable of independent choice [1].

Thus such laws are valid in principle but vulnerable in procedure. Narrowly defining coercion, confining complaints to the aggrieved person, easing blanket prior-notice rules, and applying the proportionality standard would let Article 25's public-order limit shield the vulnerable without hollowing out Article 21's guarantee of conscience.