Maharashtra legislature clears freedom of religion bill amid opposition concerns

The Maharashtra legislature has passed the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, a proposed law aimed at curbing religious conversions carried out through coercion, fraud, inducement, or marriage, setting off a renewed debate over its implications for constitutional freedoms.

The bill, cleared by both the Assembly and the Legislative Council, will now be sent to Governor Devendra Fadnavis for assent before it can come into force.

Touted by the government as a safeguard against forced conversions, the legislation introduces a regulatory framework governing religious change, alongside stringent penal provisions.

Under the bill, conversions through force, misrepresentation, undue influence, or material inducements such as money, employment, or marriage are prohibited. Those found guilty, particularly in cases involving conversion under the pretext of marriage, face up to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh.

A key feature of the legislation is the requirement for individuals seeking to convert to submit a prior declaration to authorities at least 60 days in advance. Post-conversion, both the individual and the organisation facilitating the process must formally report the change. The law also mandates that investigations be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector and provides for rehabilitation support, along with provisions concerning maintenance and custody of children in affected cases.

The government has defended the bill as a necessary intervention to protect vulnerable sections from exploitation. Officials argue that the law is religion-neutral and designed to ensure that conversions occur only through free will, without coercion or inducement. The move also brings Maharashtra in line with several other states that have enacted similar legislation.

However, the bill has drawn criticism from opposition parties and some members within the ruling alliance, who have raised concerns over its potential misuse. Critics argue that the 60-day notice requirement could compromise privacy and expose individuals to social pressure or intimidation, particularly in sensitive cases such as interfaith marriages.

Questions have also been raised about the necessity of such a law when Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Opponents contend that procedural requirements could, in practice, act as barriers to the exercise of personal choice, despite the bill’s stated objective of protecting it.

The legislation has also revived broader national debates surrounding anti-conversion laws, often linked to politically sensitive issues such as interfaith relationships. While supporters maintain that such laws are essential to prevent exploitation and maintain social order, critics view them as potentially restrictive and open to misuse.

With the bill now awaiting gubernatorial approval, its eventual implementation and possible legal challenges are expected to shape the contours of the ongoing debate over religious freedom and state regulation.