Anti-Conversion Laws in India: A Challenge to Religious Freedom and International Standards

Admin

15 hours ago

Table of Contents

AUTHOR : Fathima Navas student of National University of Advanced Legal Studies.

‘Freedom of conscience is an absolute inner freedom of a citizen to mound his own relationship with god in whatever manner he likes when this freedom becomes articulate and expressed in the outward form it is ‘it is to profess and practice religion.’

Anti-conversion laws, which prohibit or restrict religious conversions, have been a contentious issue in India for decades. These laws, enacted in several Indian states, are often defended as a means to prevent forced or fraudulent religious conversions. However their alignment with international human rights standards has been a subject of ongoing debate.. Reports like those by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) highlight these violations and suggest that India’s anti-conversion laws undermine international obligations. This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of anti conversion laws, their non-compliance with international standards, and the broader human rights implications.

Introduction to Anti-Conversion Laws in India

Anti-conversion laws, often referred to as “Freedom of Religion Acts,” were introduced in India to prevent forced, fraudulent, or inducement-driven religious conversions; they were first enacted by Hindu princely states during British colonial period during 1930s and 1940s as an attempt to preserve Hindu religious identity in the face of British missionaries.

After independence , over the years there have been multiple attempts made by the centre to legislate anti conversion laws. The first attempt being , the Indian Conversion (Regulation and Registration ) Bill introduced in 1954 , which aimed to enforce licensing of missionaries and the registration of conversion with government officials. Following this, a few more private member bills were introduced in the parliament but none were passed as they could not gather political support.

In 2015, the Ministry of Law and Justice advised against the formation of a national legislation as it was not tenable since religion was purely a state subject under the Indian Constitution.

Hence, several state governments have enacted such “freedom of religion” acts to restrict religious conversions carried out by force, inducement or fraud. Currently 12 states have such acts in force , Madhya Pradesh , Arunachal Pradesh and Chhattisgarh are a few to name. Common provisions of these state-level laws include mandatory prior notice of conversion, penalization of “inducement,” and the transfer of the burden of proof to the accused.

While the stated intent of these laws is to uphold public order and protect vulnerable populations, they have been criticized for vague definitions, misuse, and targeting religious minorities and interfaith couples. This controversy necessitates examining their compatibility with India’s constitutional guarantees and international obligations, particularly under ICCPR Article 18.

Examining Anti-Conversion Laws in India

Indian anti-conversion laws define “forced” conversions broadly, often encompassing conversions by “allurement” or “inducement,” terms criticized for their ambiguity. These laws require individuals intending to convert to notify authorities in advance, subjecting them to scrutiny and possible harassment. The provisions under this shifts the burden of proof to the accused, undermining principles of fairness and due process.

Regardless, the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 and the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, two of the first state anti-conversion laws, were affirmed by the Indian judiciary in Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977). The Court opined that the constitution under Article 25 does not include the right to convert others. It emphasized that efforts to convert through coercion or inducement infringe upon the “freedom of conscience” guaranteed to all citizens equally. The Court clarified that propagation refers only to persuasion or exposition without coercion.

The judgment also linked anti-conversion laws to maintaining public order, noting that forced conversions could lead to unrest, which falls under the states’ legislative competence as per the Constitution’s Seventh Schedule (Entry I, List II). Thus, the Court found the restrictions constitutional, balancing individual freedoms with public order concerns.

However, critics argue that this decision predates modern interpretations of individual autonomy and privacy under Article 21, as articulated in cases like Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Such laws not only contradict religious freedom but also infringe upon other fundamental rights, including the Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21) and the Right to Equality (Article 14) and so these are called out to be unjustified and unconstitutional.

Recent judgments by High Courts in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have brought to light significant issues regarding the misuse of anti-conversion laws, particularly in cases involving interfaith couples. These courts have observed that the implementation of such laws has, at times, led to the harassment and targeting of individuals who have voluntarily chosen to convert for marriage or other personal reasons.

For instance, in Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court has intervened in several cases where anti-conversion laws were invoked to annul interfaith marriages or criminalize consenting adults. The court emphasized that such laws cannot be used as a tool to infringe upon an individual’s fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom of choice, as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution. It noted that the state has a duty to protect individual freedoms, even when societal or familial objections arise against interfaith unions.

Similarly, in Madhya Pradesh, the High Court criticized the misuse of anti-conversion provisions that placed undue scrutiny on interfaith relationships. It highlighted how the requirement for prior notice of conversion, combined with vague definitions of coercion and inducement, has created an environment of fear and suppression, discouraging individuals from exercising their religious and personal freedoms.

These judicial observations underscore the need for a more nuanced approach to anti-conversion laws. While the state may seek to address genuine instances of forced or fraudulent conversions, the current framework often ends up encroaching on individual rights, particularly in the context of interfaith marriages. A balanced legal framework should ensure that public order is maintained without compromising constitutional liberties and the right to make personal decisions freely. These judgments also stress the importance of procedural safeguards to prevent misuse and to ensure that such laws do not become instruments of societal or political coercion.

Non-Compliance with International Standards on Religious Freedom

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a party, enshrines freedom of thought, conscience, and religion under Article 18. It encompasses the right to adopt, practice, and propagate a religion of one’s choice. Article 18(2) prohibits coercion impairing this freedom, while Article 18(3) allows restrictions only when necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals, and only when prescribed by law.

India’s anti-conversion laws conflict with Article 18 of the ICCPR by infringing on personal autonomy, disproportionately targeting minorities, and failing the proportionality test. As per the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) report the features of Indian state-level anti conversion laws are inconsistent with international human rights laws. The common features of the legislation includes prohibition on conversions, notifying the government of one’s intent to convert and burden shifting provision that presume an individual accused of violating this law guilty.

The USCIRF has consistently criticized India’s anti-conversion laws for fostering an environment of hostility against religious minorities. The 2023 report foregrounded that “these laws create a hostile, and on occasion violent, environment for religious minority communities because they do not require any evidence to support accusations of wrongdoing.” The report further noted that such laws contravene India’s commitments under the ICCPR and other international human rights instruments.

These laws also conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), particularly Articles 18 and 19, which guarantee freedom of religion and expression. Moreover, it also undermines India’s global image as a pluralistic democracy committed to human rights.

International standards prioritize individual autonomy in religious matters, ensuring that any limitations are proportionate, non-discriminatory, and narrowly tailored.

Reports by the UN Human Rights Committee have expressed concerns over India’s anti-conversion laws, suggesting that they fail to meet these standards.

Critics argue these laws are often weaponized against religious minorities and marginalized groups. Case studies reveal instances of harassment, arrests, and societal polarization under the guise of preventing forced conversions.

The shift of the burden of proof onto the accused contradicts principles of natural justice, exposing individuals to arbitrary state action. The procedural requirements for conversion also discourage genuine conversions, chilling religious freedom.

Anti-conversion laws are frequently invoked to oppose interfaith marriages, reinforcing communal divisions and perpetuating the rhetoric of “love jihad.” This further restricts individual choice in personal relationships.

While aimed at preventing forced conversions,India’s anti-conversion laws often infringe on individual freedoms and contravene international human rights standards. By fostering discrimination and restricting autonomy, they undermine India’s commitments under the ICCPR and UDHR, harming its democratic and pluralistic image. To align with global norms, these laws require urgent reform to protect religious freedom and uphold justice.

Conclusion

India’s anti-conversion laws, despite their stated intent, raise significant concerns regarding individual autonomy, fairness, and compliance with international human rights standards. Reports by the USCIRF and other international bodies underscore the laws’ discriminatory impact and misalignment with ICCPR Article 18.

To address these challenges, India must undertake legal and procedural reforms that ensure clarity, fairness, and proportionality in anti-conversion legislation. A rights-based approach, balancing societal interests with individual freedoms, is essential to uphold India’s constitutional values and international commitments. Without such reforms, anti-conversion laws will continue to undermine the very freedoms they seek to protect, tarnishing India’s reputation as a pluralistic and democratic society.

Frequently Asked Questions