The Bombay High Court has observed that religious conversion solely for the purpose of marriage cannot be permitted, while affirming an individual’s freedom to change religion. The remarks came during a hearing on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Maharashtra’s newly enacted anti-conversion law, the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, as reported in India Today.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh C. Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna observed that the legislation was intended to preserve the secular fabric of society and address religious conversions obtained through force or coercion.
“This is just to maintain the secular fabric of society. The state is only concerned with coercion or religious conversion with force. Anyone has freedom to change their religion. But just for the purpose of marriage, conversion cannot be permitted,” the bench said.
The petition was filed by a 70-year-old Islamic preacher from Thane, who challenged the law on the grounds that it restricts the freedom to propagate religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.
What Does Maharashtra’s Anti-Conversion Law Say?
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, criminalises religious conversions obtained through force, fraud, coercion, allurement, misrepresentation, undue influence or marriage.
Section 6 of the Act requires individuals to provide 60 days’ prior notice before converting their religion.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Yusuf Muchhala, Mateen Shaikh, Ejaz Maqbool and Shahid Nadeem challenged the definition of “allurement” under Section 2(a). They also questioned the pre-conversion procedures prescribed under Sections 6 and 7, arguing that the provisions imposed stringent restrictions on religious conversion.
During the hearing, the judges reiterated that individuals remained free to change their religion but questioned the practice of converting shortly before marriage.
Court Questions Petitioner’s Grounds For Challenge
The bench also questioned how the petitioner was directly aggrieved by the legislation, observing that the plea lacked foundational facts and appeared to raise an academic challenge rather than demonstrate specific instances of interference with religious activities.
“Show that you were imparting your religion and, because of State intervention, you were not able to impart. You file a better petition. So that we can have a better idea of what the ground is reality. There is absolute silence in your petition. You can also show how you have been inconvenienced while imparting,” the bench said.
The court declined to entertain the petition in its existing form, citing the absence of specific factual pleadings. However, it granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh plea supported by adequate facts.
Following the court’s observations, the petitioner withdrew the petition, stating that a fresh challenge would be filed soon.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
