Former Orissa High Court Chief Justice and Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar has strongly criticized anti-conversion laws in India, calling them “anti-choice” and arguing that they undermine individual freedoms. Speaking at a panel discussion organized by ADF India on 28 February 2025, he highlighted the fundamental flaws in such legislation, particularly their presumption that religious conversions occur under coercion.
“These anti-conversion laws are not so much a law against forced conversions, but are laws against the freedom of choice,” Muralidhar said. “There is a presumption in all these laws that if a person belonging or born into a certain religion decides to embrace another religion, then such a decision must be due to some kind of intimidation. This basic presumption explains why the law shifts the burden of proof onto the person who’s charged with converting another against the person’s will.”
Muralidhar pointed out that instead of requiring proof from the person who converted, the law places the burden on those accused of facilitating conversions. This, he argued, makes such laws an instrument to suppress free choice rather than a safeguard against forced conversions.
He also emphasized how these laws disproportionately impact marginalized communities, particularly Dalits, by imposing bureaucratic hurdles and public scrutiny.
“Now, a Dalit seeking to embrace Buddhism will now have to explain to a district magistrate why they are making that choice,” he explained. “They’ll have to first of all announce to the whole world: ‘listen, I’m exercising my choice to embrace a particular religion.’ One can reasonably argue that after the Puttaswamy privacy judgment, this kind of a law should not withstand legal scrutiny because it straight away hits at the freedom of choice, freedom of privacy, choice of religion, of course, but what goes along with religion… the choice of dress, the choice of food, the choice of prayer, all of that is hit. So personal choice has become a public choice and is forced to become a public choice, and you’re supposed to defend yourself publicly for the personal choice that you’ve made. That is what I think is the most pernicious aspect of these conversion laws.”
Another significant concern raised by Muralidhar was the broad scope of who is allowed to file complaints under these laws. He noted that instead of only allowing the alleged victim of forced conversion to come forward, the laws enable third parties—including distant relatives and vigilante groups—to intervene.
“Who can complain about forced conversion is only a person who’s been a victim of a forced conversion. But the law allows anyone… any cousin, any relative… and thus vigilante groups are actually going around looking at notice boards and collector’s offices or registrar offices to find who’s put up a notice that they want to have an inter-faith marriage. In this case, they’ll also have ready information on who wants to convert and thus subject the person to public intimidation,” he said.
Muralidhar also questioned whether legal challenges alone could bring about real change, arguing that social transformation was necessary.
“That’s the question we have to ask ourselves. All these social practices that this country is host to seem to be impervious… to the constitutional values and provisions of the Constitution. The victory will come when we change, transform ourselves as a society and overcome our innate inherent prejudices and emancipate ourselves as true human beings,” he stated.
(With inputs from Bar and Bench)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.