Bombay High Court Challenged Over Maharashtra Anti-Conversion Law

A petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026. The petitioner, 70-year-old Islamic scholar Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan, argues that several provisions of the law violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The plea, filed through advocate Mateen Shaikh, contends that while preventing forced or fraudulent marriages and religious conversions is a legitimate state objective, the law cannot extend to monitoring consensual inter-faith relationships or voluntary changes of faith. The petitioner argues that the choice of a life partner and an individual's decision regarding their religion are protected aspects of personal autonomy, dignity, privacy, and decisional freedom under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution.

One of the key provisions challenged is Section 9(2), which prescribes enhanced punishment for conversion of women. The petitioner argues that this provision is discriminatory on the basis of gender. The plea also questions Section 2(a), which defines “allurement”, claiming that the provision is vague and overly broad. The petitioner argues that terms such as “better lifestyle” and “divine healing” could potentially cover legitimate religious discourse, charity, and humanitarian activities.

The petitioner has further contended that the threat of criminal proceedings, arrest, non-bailable prosecution, mandatory disclosure of personal information, and public scrutiny under the Act could deter individuals and religious organisations from engaging in lawful religious teaching, preaching, and charitable work. The mandatory 60-day notice required before a person changes their religion has also been challenged, with the plea arguing that such a requirement exposes an individual's personal faith choice to public scrutiny and state inquiry, thereby infringing the right to privacy.

The petition states that when a person voluntarily chooses to change their religion, the state's inquiry should be limited to determining whether the decision was free, voluntary, and based on informed consent. The petitioner argues that the government cannot investigate an individual's beliefs, motivations, or reasons merely because they may have been exposed to religious instruction, persuasion, or lawful charitable activities.

The petitioner has also challenged Section 13, which places the burden of proof on the accused. According to the plea, this provision undermines procedural fairness and the constitutional presumption of innocence. The petitioner has sought that the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act be declared unconstitutional. Alternatively, it has urged the High Court to read down its provisions and ensure that they are in line with the Constitution.

The challenge to the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act is significant, as it raises important questions about the balance between individual freedom and state regulation. The Act, which was enacted to prevent forced or fraudulent conversions, has been criticized for its broad and vague provisions. The petition highlights the need for the state to ensure that its laws are in line with the Constitution and do not infringe on individual rights.

The Bombay High Court will now consider the petition and determine whether the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act is constitutional. The court's decision will have significant implications for individual freedom and state regulation in Maharashtra. The case is being closely watched by human rights activists and religious organisations, who argue that the Act is an attempt to restrict individual freedom and impose state control over personal choices.

In conclusion, the challenge to the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act is an important test of the balance between individual freedom and state regulation. The petition highlights the need for the state to ensure that its laws are in line with the Constitution and do not infringe on individual rights. The Bombay High Court's decision will have significant implications for individual freedom and state regulation in Maharashtra.

The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act is part of a broader trend of anti-conversion laws being enacted in several states in India. These laws have been criticized for their broad and vague provisions, which can be used to restrict individual freedom and impose state control over personal choices. The challenge to the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act is an important step in ensuring that the state does not overstep its bounds and infringe on individual rights.

The case also highlights the importance of judicial review in ensuring that the state does not abuse its power. The Bombay High Court's decision will be closely watched by human rights activists and religious organisations, who argue that the Act is an attempt to restrict individual freedom and impose state control over personal choices. The court's decision will have significant implications for individual freedom and state regulation in Maharashtra, and will set an important precedent for the rest of the country.

In the end, the challenge to the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act is a reminder that individual freedom and state regulation must be balanced in a way that respects the Constitution and the rights of all individuals. The Bombay High Court's decision will be an important step in ensuring that this balance is maintained, and that the state does not overstep its bounds and infringe on individual rights.