Supreme Court Scrutinizes Anti-Conversion Laws: Notices Issued to Nine States Amid Stay Petitions
New Delhi, September 22, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India has intensified its examination of anti-conversion laws, issuing notices to nine states on September 16, 2025, and seeking their responses within four weeks to petitions challenging the constitutional validity of these contentious statutes. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and including Justice Vinod Chandran, also questioned the ambiguous terminology in these laws, particularly the definition of "deceitful" conversions, while clarifying that the court's role is to assess constitutionality, not to legislate new provisions. This development marks a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over religious freedom, personal liberty, and state authority in India.
Background: The Rise of Anti-Conversion Laws
Anti-conversion laws, often termed "Freedom of Religion" acts, have been enacted in 12 of India’s 28 states, predominantly under Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led governments. These laws aim to prohibit religious conversions induced by force, fraud, allurement, or marriage, with penalties ranging from fines to life imprisonment in some cases. The states with such legislation include Uttar Pradesh (2021, amended 2024), Madhya Pradesh (2021), Gujarat (2021), Uttarakhand (2018, amended 2024), Himachal Pradesh (2006), Haryana (2021), Karnataka (2022), Chhattisgarh (2000), Jharkhand (2017), Odisha (1967), Rajasthan (2025), and Arunachal Pradesh (1978, though not fully implemented). The recent notices target nine of these states, with a focus on their stringent provisions and alleged misuse.
The laws have stirred controversy for their broad definitions and severe punishments. For instance, Uttar Pradesh’s 2024 amendment to its Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act allows third-party complaints, imposes life imprisonment for certain offenses, and sets rigorous bail conditions, raising concerns about overreach. Critics argue these provisions disproportionately target religious minorities, interfaith couples, and even routine religious activities, such as prayer gatherings or charitable work. Supporters, including state governments, defend the laws as necessary to prevent "love jihad"—a term alleging coerced conversions through romantic relationships—and to protect vulnerable groups like Scheduled Castes, Tribes, women, and minors from predatory conversion tactics.
Petitions and Legal Challenges
The Supreme Court’s latest actions stem from a series of petitions, including those filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), advocate Vrinda Grover, and other advocacy groups. These petitions argue that the anti-conversion laws violate fundamental rights under Articles 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and 25 (freedom of conscience and religion) of the Indian Constitution. Specific grievances include the laws’ vague language, lack of safeguards against misuse, and their chilling effect on religious expression and interfaith relationships. For example, petitioners have highlighted cases where individuals faced arrests for consensual interfaith marriages or for distributing religious literature, often without evidence of coercion.
The court’s scrutiny follows a history of judicial engagement with these laws. In Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Madhya Pradesh and Odisha’s anti-conversion laws, ruling that Article 25’s guarantee of religious propagation does not extend to a right to convert others, provided laws target only forced conversions to maintain public order. However, recent petitions draw on newer precedents, such as Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018, Hadiya case), which upheld consensual interfaith marriages as part of personal liberty, and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which recognized privacy as a fundamental right. These cases provide a framework for challenging the laws’ intrusive oversight of personal choices.
Since 2020, as states introduced or tightened these laws, legal challenges have mounted. In January 2021, the Supreme Court agreed to examine the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand laws but declined interim stays. High courts have delivered mixed rulings: the Gujarat High Court stayed key provisions of its state’s law in 2021, while the Madhya Pradesh High Court struck down a pre-conversion declaration requirement in 2022, though this was appealed to the Supreme Court. In 2023, the apex court consolidated 21 related challenges from various high courts and sought the Centre’s response. The 2024-2025 period saw further escalation, with significant hearings in April, May, and July 2025, culminating in the September notices.
Key Supreme Court Developments (2024-2025)
The Supreme Court’s recent actions reflect growing concern over the laws’ implementation and impact. Key moments include:
- April 16, 2025: The court heard urgent pleas against the misuse of anti-conversion laws, particularly Uttar Pradesh’s 2024 amendments, which expanded the scope of who can file complaints and introduced harsher penalties. No immediate relief was granted, but the court expedited the hearing schedule.
- May 2025: During a hearing involving a conversion case against Christian university officials, the court orally observed that parts of Uttar Pradesh’s law "may seem violative" of Article 25, signaling potential constitutional issues.
- May 2, 2025: The bench, then led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, agreed to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging Uttar Pradesh’s amendments for their vague language and lack of procedural safeguards, particularly regarding third-party complaints.
- July 16, 2025: A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra directed a stay on Uttar Pradesh’s 2024 amendments until a full hearing, issuing a notice to the state government to justify the changes.
- September 16, 2025: The latest hearing saw the court issue notices to nine states, seeking responses within four weeks on petitions demanding a stay on their anti-conversion laws. The bench, led by CJI Gavai, questioned the term "deceitful" conversion, asking, "Who will decide that a religious conversion is ‘deceitful’?" The court also de-tagged a plea seeking a nationwide ban on such conversions, emphasizing its focus on constitutional scrutiny over legislative overreach.
Impact and Sociopolitical Context
The Supreme Court’s intervention could affect over 200 million people across the states with these laws. Data from Uttar Pradesh indicates 189 arrests under its anti-conversion law by 2021, with 108 FIRs involving 350 accused, while Karnataka reported similar crackdowns on religious gatherings. Advocacy groups, including the International Christian Concern and Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, have documented cases of pastors, missionaries, and interfaith couples facing harassment, often without proof of coercion. For instance, a 2022 Karnataka case saw a pastor arrested for distributing religious pamphlets, and Uttar Pradesh reported arrests for prayer meetings mischaracterized as conversion events.
The laws have sparked polarized reactions. On X, supporters of the laws, rallying under hashtags like #JudicialOverreach (trending with over 8,000 posts), argue that judicial scrutiny undermines democratically elected state governments’ efforts to maintain social harmony. Conversely, critics, such as the handle @TheJonahProjec2, have called the laws "unconstitutional" and urged collective action for religious equality, garnering significant online traction. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Congress have echoed petitioners’ concerns, framing the laws as tools for targeting minorities, while BJP leaders defend them as essential for protecting vulnerable communities.
The Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, has challenged the petitioners’ standing, alleging political motivations behind the lawsuits. However, the court’s focus on vague terminology and potential rights violations suggests a rigorous review ahead. The next hearing, scheduled in six weeks, will likely delve deeper into the balance between public order and individual freedoms.
Broader Implications
The Supreme Court’s verdict could redefine the contours of religious liberty in India, a nation of 1.4 billion with diverse faiths. A ruling striking down or modifying these laws could curb their enforcement, offering relief to minorities and interfaith couples. Conversely, upholding them could embolden states to tighten restrictions further, potentially escalating tensions in a country already grappling with communal polarization. Analysts note that the outcome will resonate globally, as nations watch how India navigates religious freedom amid rising nationalism.
As one legal scholar remarked, “This case isn’t just about conversion—it’s about the state’s power to regulate personal faith in a pluralistic democracy.” With the court poised to deliver a landmark judgment, India awaits a decision that could shape its social and constitutional landscape for years to come.
For More News Updates Follow Us On Www.tconews.in
