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.

Q. 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. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

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.

(~325 words)

Sources: 1. Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026 (Bill 20 of 2026) — 60-day prior declaration, relatives' right to complain, voiding of marriages, enhanced penalties for women/minors/SC-ST 2. Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (17 January 1977) — "propagate" excludes right to convert; state anti-conversion laws upheld 3. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (8 March 2018) — adult's choice of faith and spouse beyond family veto 4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (24 August 2017) — privacy and decisional autonomy under Article 21 5. The Constitution of India, Ministry of Law and Justice — Articles 14, 21, 25; Seventh Schedule, State List Entry 1