Maharashtra anti-conversion Bill passed; Shiv Sena (UBT) backs govt, Congress-NCP oppose

Outside the House, Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray said freedom of religion must exist for everyone, but conversions carried out through force or exploitation should be opposed. “If anyone is converting by force or by taking advantage of someone’s helplessness and falsely luring them, we are against it. We support that Bill fully,” Thackeray said.

However, the Congress, NCP (SP) and the Samajwadi Party opposed the legislation and demanded that it be referred to a joint select committee of both Houses for further scrutiny and public consultation.

Several Opposition legislators termed the Bill unconstitutional and accused the government of targeting a particular community and creating social divisions.

NCP (SP) MLA Jitendra Awhad said the very title of the legislation was misleading. “This is not Dharma Swatantrya (freedom of religion); this is Dharma Niyantran — controlling religion,” he said.

Congress MLA Amin Patel and SP MLA Abu Azmi also termed the Bill unconstitutional, raising concerns about the safety of individuals wishing to convert and the implications for privacy.

Introducing the Bill, Fadnavis said Maharashtra was not the first state to enact such a legislation, noting that similar laws are already in force in 12 states, including Odisha, Karnataka, Haryana, Rajasthan and Arunachal Pradesh. “This Bill is not against any particular religion. It applies to all religions. It is meant to prevent religious conversions carried out through coercion, inducement, fraud or deception,” he said, adding that the legislation was “100 per cent constitutional”.

Explaining the rationale behind the Bill, Fadnavis said disputes around religious conversions — particularly those linked to interfaith marriages — often lead to law and order situations. “In cases of interfaith marriages involving individuals from different religious backgrounds, disputes often arise and sometimes lead to law and order situations. Once such a situation emerges, effective action must be taken to address it,” he said.

Fadnavis added that existing criminal laws such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) do not contain specific provisions dealing with unlawful religious conversions. “As things stand, the prevailing laws — whether it be the BNS or other statutes — lack explicit provisions specifically addressing this matter. Consequently, we rely on existing provisions such as fraud,” he said.

“If specific provisions are in place, difficulties related to unlawful conversion or disputes around interfaith marriages will not arise. To ensure clarity and prevent recurring law and order disturbances, this Bill has been introduced,” he added.

According to the Chief Minister, the legislation clearly defines illegal religious conversion, including conversions carried out through allurement, coercion, fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence, as well as cases involving minors.

Persons or organisations facilitating such conversions would be liable for punishment under the proposed law. The Bill also empowers the police to take suo motu action in cases of alleged illegal conversion.

Opposition parties, however, strongly criticised the proposed legislation.

Congress MLA Aslam Shaikh said several provisions of the Bill infringed on privacy and personal liberty. “Religion is a personal matter but the Bill mandates people to give a notice for 60 days before converting. Why should a person publicly declare that they want to convert? After that, who will ensure that person’s protection and safety?” he asked.

Shaikh also objected to the provision placing the burden of proof on the accused. “This Bill will be an injustice to two adults of different faiths who fall in love,” he said.

Samajwadi Party MLA Rais Shaikh termed the Bill “regressive” and alleged that it targeted a particular community. “The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill presented by the government is a one-sided Bill brought to target a particular community. There is strong resentment among minority communities,” he said.

Rais Shaikh and Amin Patel also questioned the absence of data to support the government’s claims about large-scale religious conversions in the state. “If the government claims that a large number of religious conversions are taking place, it should present the relevant data,” Rais said.

He added that while the government had earlier claimed one lakh complaints of “love jihad” had been received, departmental information showed only 402 complaints had actually been recorded.

Rais also demanded that the government place before the House the report of the committee formed in February 2025 under the chairmanship of the then Director General of Police to examine cases of religious conversion in the state.

“The provision requiring a person intending to convert to give 60 days’ prior notice raises questions. If someone gives such notice, will the government take responsibility for that person’s security?” he asked.

Defending the legislation, Fadnavis said similar laws have existed in several states since 1968 and that the Bill is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

“Article 25 of the Constitution grants every individual the right to freedom of religion. This legislation will empower the police and administrative machinery to maintain law and order and deal with unlawful conversions effectively,” he said.

“I request the House to set aside rumours surrounding the Bill. It is fully constitutional in both letter and spirit,” the Chief Minister added.