Rajasthan's Anti-Conversion Law Challenged in Supreme Court Over Fundamental Rights Violations

New Delhi – The constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2025, is now under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. The Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society has filed a writ petition asserting that the new statute represents a grave infringement upon fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, including the freedoms of religion, speech, and privacy.

The petition, which has been admitted by a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, argues that the Act is designed not to prevent unlawful conversions but to instill fear and create a "chilling effect" on the exercise of religious freedom, particularly targeting minority communities. The Court has issued a notice to the State of Rajasthan, returnable within four weeks.

The Core of the Challenge: Vague Definitions and a 'Chilling Effect'

At the heart of the challenge is the Act's broad and allegedly ambiguous definitions of terms that form the basis for criminalizing conversions. Section 3 of the Act prohibits religious conversion through "misrepresentation, misinformation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, online solicitation, marriage or pretext of marriage or by any other fraudulent means."

The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Dr. Rajeev Dhavan and Advocate Amit Pai, contends that these definitions are so expansive they effectively blur the line between willful conversion and coerced conversion. The plea states, "the structure of the Rajasthan Act is only to create fear in the minds of people and dissuade people from conversions. Further, it is only a tool for harassment of the minority communities and create a chilling effect."

The petition meticulously deconstructs key terms: * "Allurement": Defined to include gifts, gratification, or material benefits, the plea argues this could criminalize legitimate charitable activities. * "Convincing for conversion": Defined as making a person agree to adopt another religion, the petitioner argues this directly equates peaceful persuasion with unlawful force, thereby striking at the core of the right to propagate religion under Article 25 and freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). * "Conversion": The Act's definition pointedly excludes a return to one's "ancestral religion," a classification the petition assails as discriminatory and violative of Article 14.

By criminalizing ordinary religious discourse and social work, the petitioners argue, the Act effectively creates an environment where any act of propagation could be misconstrued as an unlawful inducement, deterring individuals from exercising their constitutional rights.

Draconian Penalties and Procedural Hurdles

The petition also takes aim at the Act's stringent penal framework and onerous procedural requirements, arguing they are disproportionate and violate due process.

Punishment Framework: Section 5 of the Act prescribes severe mandatory minimum sentences, ranging from seven years to life imprisonment, with fines from five to twenty-five lakh rupees. The penalties are enhanced if the person converted is a woman, a minor, a person with a disability, or belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The plea highlights the absurdity of these punishments, noting they are comparable to sentences for heinous crimes like rape, murder, or major drug trafficking offenses under the NDPS and POCSO Acts, without any rational justification. The provision for "mass conversion"—defined as involving just "two or more persons"—is also challenged as arbitrary.

Pre-Conversion Declarations: Sections 8 and 9 mandate that both the individual intending to convert and the religious priest facilitating the ceremony must submit prior declarations to the District Magistrate. The petition argues this requirement is a direct assault on the right to privacy and freedom of conscience. The District Magistrate is empowered to conduct an inquiry and entertain objections from "any person or organisation," creating a mechanism for public scrutiny and potential harassment of individuals making a personal choice of faith. The plea submits that "apart from being a direct affront to the right to privacy and the right to choose one's religion and faith... this provision becomes a tool of harassment." Failure to comply with these declaration requirements carries its own severe penalties of seven to fourteen years' imprisonment.

Reverse Burden of Proof: In a significant departure from established criminal jurisprudence, Section 14 of the Act places a reverse burden of proof on the accused. It compels the person accused of facilitating an unlawful conversion to prove that the conversion was not conducted through prohibited means. The petition argues this fundamentally violates the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21.

Confiscation, Demolition, and Legislative Competence

The petition further assails the Act's provisions allowing for the confiscation and demolition of property. Sections 5(6), 10(3), 12, and 13 empower authorities to forfeit property, freeze bank accounts, and demolish premises deemed to have been "used for unlawful conversion." The petitioners contend that these measures are punitive, lack a nexus with the Act's stated objective of preventing forceful conversion, and violate the right to property under Article 300A. The provision allowing demolition with only 72 hours' notice is flagged as being particularly arbitrary and contrary to established Supreme Court directives.

Finally, the plea questions the Rajasthan legislature's very competence to enact such a law. The State has justified the Act under Entry 1 (Public Order) of the State List in the Seventh Schedule. However, the petitioners argue that the State has failed to provide any data or material demonstrating that religious conversions pose a threat to public order in Rajasthan. The petition asserts that the Act's objective of preventing "unlawful conversion" does not fall within the judicially defined scope of "public order," rendering the legislation unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court's decision to issue notice sets the stage for a landmark constitutional battle, with its outcome poised to have far-reaching implications for religious freedom, personal liberty, and the separation of powers in India.