At a time when public discourse is increasingly shaped by slogans and suspicion, Maharashtra’s proposed Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2026 has been hastily labelled by some as an “anti-conversion law.” Such characterisations, while politically convenient, fail to engage with the deeper constitutional logic underlying the legislation.
Far from curtailing religious freedom, the Bill seeks to protect its most essential element: the freedom of conscience. For many families, especially those raising daughters, the issue is not abstract. It is rooted in real anxieties about personal safety, deception in relationships, and the protection of religious identity. When viewed from this perspective, safeguards against forced or fraudulent conversion can serve as an important layer of protection rather than a restriction.
The Bill provides for support to individuals affected by unlawful religious conversion. It entitles the victim to receive maintenance and provides for custody of children. Further, the State Government shall provide rehabilitation assistance to such persons in the prescribed manner.
Protection, Not Prohibition
At its heart, the legislation is a protective framework, not a restrictive one. In many cases, individuals, particularly women, minors, and those in vulnerable circumstances, may be subjected to subtle pressures that are difficult to detect or prove. Conversion in such situations is not an exercise of free will but the result of manipulation, emotional coercion, or misinformation. By prescribing penalties for such conduct, the Bill ensures that religious choice remains voluntary, rather than engineered. Enhanced penalties for offences involving vulnerable groups are therefore not paternalistic, but a recognition of ground realities where power imbalances are stark.
Stringent Penalties, Enhanced Protections
- The Bill prescribes rigorous punishments to ensure that conversions remain a matter of sincere personal choice
- A prison term of seven years and a fine of Rs 1 lakh for any conversion achieved through prohibited means such as force, fraud, or allurement
- Recognising that certain individuals face higher risks of exploitation, the Bill increases the penalty to Rs 5 lakh with prison term of seven years if the victim is a woman, a minor, a person of unsound mind, and SC or ST
- The simultaneous conversion of two or more persons is treated with the same severity as offences against vulnerable groups, attracting a seven-year jail term and a Rs 5 lakh fine
- Individuals or institutions previously convicted under this Act who commit another offence face a maximum prison term of 10 years and a fine of Rs 7 lakh
The rationale behind the requirement of a prior 60-day notice is both practical and constitutionally sound. Religious conversion is not just a private act; it often has legal, social, and familial consequences, particularly when linked to marriage. A structured process ensures that such decisions are: Deliberate rather than impulsive, informed rather than induced, and transparent rather than clandestine. The notice period creates a cooling-off window, allowing authorities to verify that the conversion is genuinely voluntary. It also provides an opportunity to detect cases where individuals may be acting under pressure but are unable to seek help themselves. Critics have argued that the notice requirement amounts to state intrusion. Religious conversion, when it intersects with civil rights and legal status, cannot be treated as entirely beyond regulatory oversight.
Necessary Corrective
In cases involving coercion or undue influence, the victim is often in a position of vulnerability, making it difficult to produce evidence. The facilitator, on the other hand, is better placed to demonstrate that due process was followed and consent was genuine. This approach is consistent with victim-centric jurisprudence, where evidentiary burdens are calibrated to address real-world asymmetries.
Indian courts have repeatedly dealt with cases where religious conversion has been used to circumvent legal obligations, particularly in matters of marriage. In Sarla Mudgal and Lily Thomas, the Supreme Court made it clear that conversion cannot be used as a device to evade personal law requirements. The Maharashtra Bill builds on this jurisprudence by ensuring that marriages linked to unlawful conversions do not acquire legal legitimacy.
In the context of “love jihad,” where women are often under intense psychological pressure from partners or their partners’ families, the 60-day window provides a cooling- off period and an opportunity for the State to verify the woman’s voluntary intent away from her “captors.”
Transparency ensures that parents and siblings, who are often the first to notice signs of grooming or coercion, can raise concerns before a deceptive marriage is finalised. Given that many victims of forced conversion are “not in a position to approach the police themselves,” the Bill’s provision allowing blood relatives to lodge an FIR is a crucial safety net.
The Maharashtra Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2026 is particularly distinguished by Section 5, which safeguards the rights of children and women in marriages deemed null and void due to unlawful conversion. Under this section: A child born out of such a marriage shall follow the religion practised by the mother prior to the relationship; the child retains succession and inheritance rights to the property of both parents and is entitled to maintenance under the applicable law; and the law provides that custody of the child will remain with the mother unless a court directs otherwise
Safeguards Against Misuse
The State has a constitutional duty not only to protect individual liberty but also to ensure that such liberty is not undermined by coercion or exploitation. This Adhiniyam represents an attempt to strike that balance. It affirms that religious freedom is not merely the absence of restraint, but the presence of genuine choice.
The true test of religious liberty is whether conversions are free, informed, and voluntary. By targeting only those conversions that fall short of this standard, the Maharashtra Bill strengthens—not weakens—the constitutional promise of freedom of conscience. In an increasingly complex social landscape, such legislation is not only justified but necessary.
