Anti-Conversion Laws in India: Constitutional Validity and Human Rights Implications

Abstract

This study critically evaluates the constitutional validity and human rights implications of State -level freedom of religion laws commonly known as ant-conversion laws in India within the broader framework of religious freedom.   Enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, the research analyses whether such laws impose unreasonable restrictions on this fundamental right.  Employing a doctrinal research methodology, the study relies on constitutional provisions, statutory analysis of eleven state “Freedom of Religion” laws, judicial precedents—particularly Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India—and relevant international human rights instruments, including the UDHR and ICCPR. It is found that the states possess legitimate authority to regulate religious conversions obtained through force, fraud or coercion in the interest of public order, several state level anti-conversion statutes contain vague and expansive definitions of terms such as “allurement,” “inducement,” “force,” and ‘undue influence.” Such ambiguity enables potential misuse, restricts voluntary religious choice, and may infringe Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution. The study further identifies procedural burdens, including mandatory prior notification and reversal of the burden of proof, as inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and the right to freely adopt a religion under international human rights law. Additionally, the differential treatment of “conversion” and “reconversion” raises concerns of discrimination. The research concludes that although preventing unlawful conversions is constitutionally permissible, existing state anti-conversion laws require substantive clarification and reform to ensure compatibility with constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards.