Anti-conversion laws scrutiny: Freedom of religion vs. state curbs in Uttar Pradesh and other states, with case timelines and model challenges
Written by Shivangi Singh
Table of Contents
- Legal Framework of Anti-Conversion Laws
- Constitutional Tension: Article 25 vs. State Interest
- Key Case Timelines
- Model Challenges: Strategies and Petitions
- Implications and 2026 Outlook
India’s anti-conversion laws, enacted by over 10 states since 2021, aim to curb forced or fraudulent religious conversions but face mounting Supreme Court challenges for infringing Article 25 rights to profess and propagate religion. Recent 2025-2026 rulings quashed FIRs in Uttar Pradesh cases and flagged “onerous” procedures, signaling deeper constitutional review amid 400+ Christian arrests last year. This article examines the laws’ framework, Article 25 tensions, key case timelines, and model legal challenges for practitioners and activists.
Legal Framework of Anti-Conversion Laws
Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (UP Act) pioneered the trend, criminalizing conversions via marriage, force, fraud, allurement, or undue influence with 1-10 year jail terms (life for minors/women). Procedures mandate 60-day prior DM notice, public declaration, police inquiry, and victim/family objections—burdening converts.
Similar statutes exist in Madhya Pradesh (2021), Gujarat (2021), Himachal Pradesh (2022), Uttarakhand (2018), Haryana (2022), Karnataka (2022), Chhattisgarh (2000/2021), Jharkhand (2017), Odisha (pending), Rajasthan (2025), Arunachal Pradesh. Common features: vague “allurement” definitions enabling misuse against interfaith marriages, aid, or prayer meetings.
Constitutional Tension: Article 25 vs. State Interest
Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience, practice, and propagation, subject to public order, morality, health [Constitution of India]. SC holds “propagation” includes proselytism, but states claim “fraudulent conversions” justify curbs (Rev. Stainislaus v. MP, 1977 upheld Orissa/MP laws).
Critics argue vagueness violates Article 14 (arbitrariness), Article 21 (privacy in faith choices), and secularism; public notices intrude privacy post-Puttaswamy. 2025 SC flagged UP Act’s “heavy paperwork” and DM/police involvement as disproportionate, emphasizing India’s secular fabric.
Key Case Timelines
SC scrutiny intensified post-2024 amendments tightening penalties.
- Pre-2025: Stainislaus (1977) benchmark; interfaith marriage challenges dismissed.
- Oct 2025: SC quashes 5/6 FIRs in Fatehpur (SHUATS “mass conversions”); Justice Pardiwala calls law misuse “travesty,” flags procedural flaws, no victim complaints.
- Jul 2025: Stays UP 2024 amendments pending hearing.
- Sep 2025: Issues notices to 9 states (UP, MP, HP, UK, CG, GJ, HR, JH, KA); 6-week hearing.
- Jan 28, 2026: Defers CJP-led batch; lists Feb 3.
- Feb 2, 2026: Refers to 3-judge bench; notices to 12 states + Centre; 4-week responses.
- Feb 8-13, 2026: Seeks replies on stay pleas; NCCI/CBI petitions highlight 400 arrests.
Batch covers discriminatory wording, arbitrary enforcement against minorities.
Model Challenges: Strategies and Petitions
Challenge via writ under Article 32 (SC) or 226 (HC); seek interim stay on FIRs/sections.
- Pleadings: Violative of Arts 14,21,25—vague terms enable harassment; disproportionate to “public order”.
- Interim Relief: Stay cognizance (S.482 CrPC), quash FIRs lacking prima facie evidence.
- Data/Evidence: Cite 2025 arrests stats, FIR misuse (no victims), interfaith marriage targeting.
- Precedents: Stainislaus limited; Puttaswamy privacy; SHUATS quashing.
Sample Petition Structure (adapt for filing):
- Facts: FIR details, no coercion proof.
- Grounds:
- Art 25 infringement (practice/propagation).
- Art 14: Overbroad “allurement.”
- Art 21: Privacy in belief.
- Prayer: Quash FIR; declare sections unconstitutional; stay law operation.
Implications and 2026 Outlook
Over 400 2025 arrests underscore misuse against Christians/Muslims; rulings may strike vague clauses or mandate guidelines. Uniform civil code debates link to interfaith curbs. By mid-2026, 3-judge bench could unify precedents, balancing state curbs with freedoms.
Activists: File RTIs for FIR stats; support petitions via NFIW/NCCI. For SEO: “UP anti-conversion FIR quash guide 2026” ranks with templates/case trackers. Enhanced scrutiny promises recalibration, safeguarding voluntary faith amid secular ethos.
