The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026 seeks to balance religious liberty with public order, but critics argue it tips the scale against minority rights. Critically examine the constitutional and governance dimensions of anti-conversion legislation in India.

Q. The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026 seeks to balance religious liberty with public order, but critics argue it tips the scale against minority rights. Critically examine the constitutional and governance dimensions of anti-conversion legislation in India. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, but Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P. (1977) held that propagation excludes conversion by force or fraud [3]. Maharashtra's Bill, which would make it the 13th such state law, revives this contested balance.

The constitutional case for such laws - Legislative competence is settled: anti-conversion laws are traced to "public order" (Entry 1, State List) and were upheld in Stanislaus [3]. - Protective rationale: enhanced punishment for conversions involving minors, women, SC/STs and persons of unsound mind targets exploitation of unequal bargaining power [2]. - Deterrence of fraud and allurement, and a declaration before the District Magistrate, seek to make conversion demonstrably voluntary and transparent [1].

Where the balance tilts against rights - The 60-day prior notice turns a private act of conscience into a permission regime, straining the privacy dimension of Article 21 [1]. - Allowing parents, siblings and relatives to complain substitutes family veto for adult autonomy — a direct Article 21 concern [1]. - A reverse burden of proof on the accused departs from the presumption of innocence [1]. - Elastic terms like allurement and inducement, plus the marriage clause, invite arbitrary application under Article 14 and fall hardest on interfaith couples and religious minorities (Articles 25, 29–30).

Governance dimensions - Widening the complainant circle risks vigilante activism and communal policing of private choice. - Implementation loads district administration and police with adjudicating faith, inviting over-policing rather than protection. - Thin pre-legislative consultation weakened democratic legitimacy; comparable state laws remain under judicial scrutiny.

Anti-conversion laws are constitutionally permissible in principle; their fairness lies in design. Narrow definitions, complaints confined to the aggrieved person, time-bound and reasoned magisterial scrutiny, penalties for false complaints and periodic judicial review would let the state curb coercion without policing conscience — securing both public order and the fraternity the Preamble promises.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026 (Bill 20 of 2026), PRS Legislative Research — prior declaration to the District Magistrate, complaint by relatives, burden of proof, prohibited modes of conversion 2. Maharashtra Assembly Passes Freedom of Religion Bill 2026 to Curb Forced Conversions, Akashvani/DD News (Prasar Bharati), March 2026 — passage of the Bill, penalty structure and enhanced punishment for minors, women and SC/ST 3. Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 677, Supreme Court of India — propagation under Article 25 does not include conversion by force or fraud; states competent to legislate on public order (no official full-text link reachable)