CourtKutchehry

Supreme Court to Hear All Challenges to Religious Conversion Laws, Transfers Cases from High Courts

Bench to examine constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws in nine States; interim stay plea to be heard after six weeks

Petitioners allege misuse against minorities and interfaith couples; States given four weeks to file replies

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi, September 17, 2025 — In a major legal development, the Supreme Court of India has decided to hear all challenges to State-level religious conversion laws — often referred to as “anti-conversion” or “Freedom of Religion” Acts — by transferring pending petitions from various High Courts to itself.

A bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the order on September 16, 2025, while hearing a batch of petitions questioning the constitutional validity of such laws enacted by multiple States.

The Court is already seized of similar petitions against laws in Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttarakhand, and will now also hear challenges to statutes in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, and the recently enacted Rajasthan Freedom of Religion law.

Background — The Rise of Anti-Conversion Laws

Several Indian States have enacted laws regulating religious conversions, citing the need to prevent conversions by force, fraud, coercion, undue influence, or allurement.

While officially titled “Freedom of Religion Acts,” critics say these laws are often used to target interfaith couples and religious minorities, and to legitimise vigilante action under the guise of preventing so-called “love jihad”.

Examples include:

Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 — Requires prior notice to authorities for conversions, imposes a reverse burden of proof, and prescribes a minimum sentence of 20 years for certain offences after a 2024 amendment.
Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 — Punishes “unlawful” conversions with up to 10 years in prison.
Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019 — Prohibits conversions by misrepresentation or undue influence.
Rajasthan Freedom of Religion Bill, 2025 — Recently passed, adding to the list of such legislations.

Petitioners’ Concerns

The lead petition was filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), an NGO led by activist Teesta Setalvad, which argues that these laws violate Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution — the rights to personal liberty and freedom of religion.

Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, appearing for CJP, told the Court that the Uttar Pradesh law’s harsh provisions — including PMLA-style bail conditions and the ability for third parties to lodge complaints — make bail “virtually impossible” for those accused, especially in interfaith marriages.

He warned that such provisions embolden vigilante groups to harass couples during festivals, church services, or even private religious observances.

Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the National Federation of Indian Women, echoed these concerns, pointing to similar issues in the Haryana conversion rules.

States’ Position

Additional Solicitor General K.M. Natraj, representing Madhya Pradesh, said the State had no objection to transferring the cases to the Supreme Court.

However, he opposed granting an immediate stay on the operation of the laws, arguing that the petitions were filed years after the statutes came into force.

Supreme Court’s Directions

The bench ordered:

Transfer of all pending High Court petitions on religious conversion laws to the Supreme Court.
Four weeks for the concerned States to file their replies.
Two additional weeks for petitioners to file rejoinders.
Listing of the matter after six weeks to consider interim stay applications.

The Court also de-tagged a separate plea by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who sought a nationwide law banning “deceitful” conversions. CJI Gavai remarked, “Who will find out whether it is a deceitful conversion?”.

To streamline proceedings, the Court appointed Advocate Srishti Agnihotri as nodal counsel for petitioners and Advocate Ruchira Goel for respondent States.

Constitutional Issues at Stake

The petitions raise fundamental questions:

Right to Privacy and Autonomy — Whether requiring prior notice to authorities for conversion violates the right to keep one’s faith private.
Freedom of Religion — Whether these laws infringe the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion under Article 25.
Equality Before Law — Whether the laws disproportionately target certain communities or interfaith couples.
Reverse Burden of Proof — Whether shifting the burden to the accused is compatible with the presumption of innocence.

Previous Judicial Interventions

In 2021, the Gujarat High Court stayed certain provisions of its anti-conversion law, including those relating to interfaith marriages.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court also issued interim orders against parts of its law. Both States later approached the Supreme Court challenging these stays.

Political and Social Impact

Except for Himachal Pradesh, all States whose laws are under challenge are governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Supporters of the laws argue they are necessary to protect vulnerable individuals from coercive conversions. Opponents say they are a political tool to polarise communities and restrict personal freedoms.

The outcome of the Supreme Court’s hearing could have a nationwide impact on interfaith marriages, religious freedom, and the limits of State power in regulating personal faith.

Next Steps

The matter will return to the Supreme Court in late October 2025, when the bench will decide whether to grant an interim stay on the operation of the laws pending final judgment.

Given the consolidation of all cases, the Court’s eventual ruling will likely settle the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws across India.

In summary:

The Supreme Court has taken control of all legal challenges to State religious conversion laws, setting the stage for a landmark judgment on the balance between protecting individuals from coercion and safeguarding fundamental freedoms. The decision to transfer cases from High Courts aims to ensure uniformity in the interpretation of these controversial statutes.