Supreme Court Scrutinizes Rajasthan Anti-Conversion Law's Power to Demolish Property Without Trial

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India has initiated a significant constitutional examination of the newly enacted Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued a notice to the Rajasthan government, seeking its response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenges the Act's provisions allowing for the confiscation and demolition of private property by executive authorities prior to any judicial conviction. The case raises profound questions about the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the constitutionality of pre-trial punitive measures.

The petition, filed by advocate and researcher M Huzaifa and veteran human rights activist John Dayal, specifically targets Sections 5(6), 10(3), 12, and 13 of the Act. These provisions, the petitioners argue, create a framework for "punitive demolitions and collective punishment," thereby infringing upon fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention), and 300A (Right to Property) of the Constitution.

This matter follows a similar PIL, Dashrath Kumar Hinunia v. State of Rajasthan , in which the apex court had also issued notice. During the hearing for the latter, the bench questioned why the petitioners had not first approached the Rajasthan High Court. Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the petitioners in that case, explained that the Supreme Court is already seized of several related matters concerning anti-conversion laws, which have been transferred from various High Courts for consolidated hearing. This procedural context underscores the national significance of the legal questions at stake.

The "Most Egregious" Law: An Analysis of the Challenged Provisions

At the heart of the challenge is the exceptional power vested in the executive. Senior Advocate Ahmadi contended that Rajasthan's law is "the most egregious" version of anti-conversion statutes in the country, highlighting penalties he described as "mind-boggling." These include potential fines of up to ₹20 lakhs for "mass conversion" (defined as the conversion of more than two people) and severe prison sentences ranging from a minimum of 20 years to life imprisonment.

A closer look at the impugned sections reveals the basis for these serious concerns:

• Section 12 & 5(6): Pre-Trial Confiscation: These sections empower the District Magistrate or any appointed gazetted officer to forfeit and confiscate any property or premises where an "illegal exercise of conversion or mass conversion has taken place." Crucially, this action can be taken "after holding the inquiry" by an executive officer, not after a conviction by a court of law. This effectively allows for the seizure of property based on an administrative finding, bypassing the rigors of a criminal trial and the presumption of innocence.

• Section 13: Administrative Demolition Powers: This provision grants executive officers the authority to demolish any "illegal/unauthorized construction(s)/structure" on a property where an alleged unlawful conversion has occurred. While the section includes a provision for a show-cause notice, petitioners argue this is mere procedural gloss on a fundamentally unconstitutional power. By linking demolition to the allegation of unlawful conversion, the Act appears to create a punitive measure that is ancillary to the primary alleged offense but executable before guilt is established.

• Section 10(3): Draconian Penalties for Institutions: The Act's scope extends beyond individuals to institutions and organizations. If found in violation, an organization faces the permanent cancellation of its registration, a prohibition on all activities within the state, confiscation of its property, freezing of financial accounts, and a staggering penalty of ₹1 crore. Such measures could effectively dismantle civil society organizations based on an administrative determination of their involvement in "unlawful" conversion activities.

Usurpation of Judicial Function and Violation of Precedent

The petitioners' central legal argument is that the Rajasthan Act dangerously blurs the lines between the executive and the judiciary. By empowering administrative officers to make quasi-judicial determinations of fact (i.e., whether an unlawful conversion occurred at a specific location) and to impose severe, irreversible penalties like property demolition, the law usurps a core function of the judiciary. This, they contend, is a direct assault on the doctrine of separation of powers, a basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Yashwant Singh, asserts that these provisions undermine the rule of law by replacing judicial oversight with executive fiat. The process of an "inquiry" by a gazetted officer lacks the procedural safeguards inherent in a judicial trial, such as the rules of evidence, the right to cross-examination, and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, the petitioners argue that the Act is in direct contravention of the Supreme Court's own precedent. They cite a 2024 judgment where the Court purportedly prohibited extrajudicial demolitions. By attempting to give legislative sanction to such actions, the Rajasthan government is accused of trying to statutorily legitimize a practice that the highest court has already deemed unconstitutional.

Potential Impact on Minority and Marginalized Communities

The plea warns of the disproportionate impact these measures could have on minority and marginalized communities. The broad and ambiguous nature of what constitutes an "unlawful" conversion, coupled with the immense power granted to local executive officers, creates a high potential for misuse. The threat of having one's home or a community center demolished or confiscated based on an allegation, even before a trial commences, could cast a chilling effect on religious freedom and freedom of association.

The petitioners frame this as a violation of the fundamental right to shelter and livelihood, which are integral components of the Right to Life under Article 21. By enabling collective punishment—where the property of an individual or institution can be targeted—the Act risks penalizing entire families or communities for the alleged actions of a few.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the Rajasthan government's response, the legal community will be watching closely. The outcome of M Huzaifa and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan will not only determine the fate of this specific legislation but could also set a crucial precedent for the constitutional limits of state power in regulating religious conversion and the sanctity of due process in India. The case represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over personal liberty, religious freedom, and the inviolability of the judicial process.