A representative image
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, popularly referred to as the state’s anti-conversion law, has come into force amid opposition from a coalition of civil society organisations, women’s groups and religious bodies.
As many as 20 organisations have publicly opposed the legislation and demanded that its implementation be withdrawn or put on hold. The groups have argued that provisions of the law could bring matters relating to religious choice, marriage and interfaith relationships under greater state scrutiny.
Which organisations are opposing the Maharashtra anti-conversion law?
The 20 organisations identified as part of the coalition opposing the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, are:
1. The Bombay Catholic Sabha
2. Mumbai For Peace
3. Palghar Zilla Masiha Sangati (PZMS)
4. Christian Development Association
5. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)
6. Maharashtra Stree Mukti Parishad
7. Hasrat-e-Zindagi Mamuli
8. Synod of Pentecostal Churches
9. Citizens for the Constitution
10. Zylo Foundation
11. Rahat Legal Aid Foundation
12. Fridays for Future Mumbai
13. United Christians of Mumbai
14. Forum Against Oppression of Women
15. Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR)
16. Maharashtra Minority Christian Development Council
17. Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS)
18. Central Mumbai Christian Fellowship
19. Christian Reform United People Association
20. Students Islamic Organisation of India (SIO)
The names of several of these organisations also appear in earlier civil-society initiatives opposing the proposed legislation. A March 2026 joint statement, for instance, listed PUCL, Mumbai For Peace, APCR, Maharashtra Stree Mukti Parishad, CSSS, Hasrat-e-Zindagi Mamuli, Forum Against Oppression of Women, Christian Development Association and the Bombay Catholic Sabha among organisations opposing the proposed law.
Why are the organisations opposing the law?
The coalition has argued that the legislation could affect an individual’s freedom of conscience and choice of religion. At a press conference in Mumbai, representatives alleged that the law would subject decisions concerning faith and marriage to government scrutiny and could create scope for harassment of interfaith couples and religious institutions.
One of the provisions highlighted by the groups is the requirement for a person intending to convert, as well as the person or institution facilitating the conversion, to provide advance notice to the authorities. The law also provides for objections, police inquiry and declarations connected with conversion.
The groups have further raised objections to provisions relating to the burden of proof and criminal penalties, arguing that the framework could be misused against vulnerable communities.
Christian organisations raise concerns over religious activities
Christian organisations have been among the prominent opponents of the legislation.
The Western Region Bishops’ Council, representing Catholic bishops in Maharashtra, earlier issued a strong statement opposing the Act, arguing that provisions concerning the burden of proof, broad language and alleged inducement could interfere with religious practices. The bishops said the legislation could disproportionately affect minority communities.
The Archdiocese of Bombay had also criticised the draft legislation before its passage, particularly the proposed 60-day prior notice requirement, arguing that religious conversion should remain a matter of individual conscience rather than requiring state permission.
The Christian Development Association and the Bombay Catholic Sabha have subsequently raised concerns about the practical implications of the law for churches and prayer services. Some churches have reportedly introduced self-declaration or disclaimer forms for worshippers to establish that they are attending voluntarily.
Civil society groups demand stay on implementation
The coalition has demanded that the Maharashtra government withdraw the notification bringing the law into force or suspend its implementation until the Supreme Court adjudicates challenges to similar anti-conversion laws enacted in other states.
The organisations have maintained that existing criminal laws already provide remedies against coercion, fraud, intimidation and other unlawful conduct, and have questioned the need for a separate framework governing religious conversion.
