Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS), along with allied Hindu organisations, has submitted memorandums across more than 75 locations in Maharashtra urging the state government to enact immediate, stringent anti-conversion safeguards. The campaign situates the proposed Maharashtra anti-conversion law within a rights-protective frame focused on deterring forced conversions and alleged coercion within relationships colloquially referenced as “love jihad”, while emphasising protection of consent, women’s safety, and religious freedom for all communities, including Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs.
Any such initiative must be evaluated against India’s constitutional architecture. Articles 25–28 guarantee freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. Article 21 protects decisional autonomy and personal liberty, including the choice of partner and faith; Article 14 ensures equality before the law; and Article 19(1)(a) secures expressive freedoms. The right to privacy, affirmed in K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), requires that any regulatory framework be narrowly tailored, minimally intrusive, and proportionate to the stated objective of preventing coercion and fraud.
Jurisprudence provides two guardrails. First, the Supreme Court held in Rev. Stanislaus v. State of M.P. (1977) that the right to propagate does not include a right to convert another person by force, fraud, or allurement, thereby validating carefully drawn state laws against coerced conversion. Second, the Court reaffirmed adult autonomy in marriage and religion in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018, the “Hadiya” case), cautioning against familial or state interference in consensual choices. A Maharashtra statute must align with both principles: deterring coercion while protecting voluntary conversion and interfaith marriage.
Across India, a patchwork of state-level frameworks exists: Odisha (1967), Madhya Pradesh (1968; comprehensively updated 2021), successor provisions in Chhattisgarh, Arunachal Pradesh (1978; largely unnotified), Gujarat (2003; 2021 amendment), Himachal Pradesh (2006; updated 2019), Uttarakhand (2018), Jharkhand (2017), Uttar Pradesh (2020), Haryana (2022), and Karnataka (2022). Common features include definitions of “force”, “fraud”, and “allurement”; procedural declarations before or after conversion; and, controversially, heightened scrutiny when conversion coincides with marriage. Courts have signalled caution: the Gujarat High Court (2021) stayed the automatic application of certain amended provisions to consensual interfaith marriages, underscoring that mere interfaith union cannot be presumed coercive.
Maharashtra presently lacks a dedicated statewide “freedom of religion” statute. Allegations about coercive conversions periodically arise in public discourse; however, consolidated official data remain limited. The National Crime Records Bureau does not track “conversion” as a distinct offence; related incidents, when they occur, are generally investigated under the Indian Penal Code or special laws (e.g., IPC Sections 366, 417, 376; POCSO where relevant). Against this evidentiary backdrop, the HJS-led memorandum drive reflects a constituency’s preference for a codified, deterrent framework that can clarify procedures, protect victims, and enable more consistent enforcement.
Social realities make the stakes tangible. Families across urban and rural Maharashtra worry about the safety and decisional autonomy of young adults navigating complex relationships; interfaith couples often face administrative hurdles and social scrutiny even when their choices are fully consensual; community leaders express a desire for clarity so that genuine coercion is deterred without stigmatizing interfaith harmony. For dharmic traditions—Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Sikh—the shared interest lies in safeguarding freedom of conscience and informed consent while strengthening social cohesion.
A balanced Maharashtra anti-conversion law can be narrowly constructed around four anchors: consent, coercion, due process, and community trust. Statutory language should precisely define “force”, “fraud”, and “allurement” with objective thresholds; no presumption of coercion should arise solely because a conversion follows marriage; adults’ decisional autonomy must be explicitly protected; and any burden-shifting must be limited, rebuttable, and evidence-driven rather than identity-based. Elevated penalties for proven coercion would deter misconduct while leaving voluntary conversion untouched.
Process design is pivotal to constitutional fidelity. Instead of prior-permission regimes that risk infringing privacy, an optional, time-bound post-facto declaration before a magistrate can be offered to protect the convert’s safety and enable in-camera verification of voluntariness. Independent legal aid, access to translators, and trauma-informed counselling should be available. Police standard operating procedures must prohibit profiling, require supervisory approval for arrest, and mandate audio-visual recording of key statements to reduce disputes. Time-bound investigation and trial provisions, coupled with victim and witness protection measures, would enhance both fairness and effectiveness.
Governance mechanisms can reinforce trust. An interfaith advisory council—including representatives of Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Sikh communities alongside other faith traditions—can vet draft rules, officer training curricula, and awareness materials, and review annual metrics. A clear anti-vigilantism clause with firm penalties would deter non-state coercion. Privacy-by-design norms for data handling, and anonymised annual reporting on complaints, charge-sheets, convictions, and case durations, would strengthen accountability while respecting confidentiality.
Prevention is as important as enforcement. Public-awareness campaigns focused on informed consent, digital safety, and the legal consequences of coercion can reduce victimisation. Helplines and one-stop crisis centres should support anyone facing pressure to change faith, regardless of community. Simultaneously, initiatives that promote interfaith dialogue and dharmic unity—youth exchanges, campus forums, and community mediation—can normalise respectful relationships across traditions and limit the space for bad actors to exploit mistrust.
In effect, the HJS-led statewide memorandum campaign has injected urgency into a sensitive policy debate in Maharashtra. The most sustainable path forward is an evidence-based, constitutionally faithful framework that punishes coercion without undermining adult autonomy or stigmatizing interfaith marriage. By centring consent, precision, and due process—and by engaging Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Sikh voices in policy design—the state can protect religious freedom and reinforce social harmony, meeting both the call for safeguards and the constitutional promise of liberty.
Inspired by this post on Hindu Jagruti Samiti.
