Allahabad High Court Strikes Down Key Provisions of the Anti-Conversion Law
- ByAdmin --
- 18 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
In a landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court invalidated several provisions of Uttar Pradesh’s anti-conversion law, finding them unconstitutional. The verdict significantly narrows the ambit of the legislation by protecting individuals’ right to choose their religion and confirms that state interest cannot override personal liberties without clear justification.
Background
- The anti-conversion law was enacted in 2021, with provisions requiring individuals to notify authorities in advance if they intended to change their religion.
- The law also imposed penalties on anyone performing or facilitating religious conversions for “marriage or other unlawful purposes.”
- The legislation was challenged by petitioners—including couples and human rights groups—who claimed it infringed on fundamental freedoms under the Constitution.
Core Legal Questions Addressed
The Court examined whether the impugned provisions:
- Violated Article 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession/religion) by restricting individuals’ right to convert.
- Contravened Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), since conversion can involve personal expression of faith and belief.
- Breached Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), as intimate relationships based on mutual consent formed part of a person’s private life.
- Failed to meet the test of reasonable restriction under Article 25(1) and Article 19, since there was no evidence of “unlawful” intent or misuse.
Key Findings of the Court
- Advance notification requirement invalidated: The Court held that forcing individuals to inform authorities before changing religion violates personal liberty and privacy.
- Marriage-related conversion restrictions struck down: Any criminal provision targeting inter-faith marriage as “forced” or “fraudulent” was considered a violation of personal autonomy when consent is genuine.
- Definition of “unlawful conversion” narrowed: The Court clarified that conversion becomes unlawful only when it involves coercion, fraud, or undue influence—not mere inter-faith marriage or voluntary change of belief.
- Vague language discarded: Ambiguous terms such as “unlawful”, “illicit”, and “forced” were declared unconstitutional in their broad and undefined form.
- Limited the law to coercive conversion: The verdict upheld only those provisions targeting forced, deceitful, or exploitative conversions, leaving space for consensual, adult-driven religious choice.
Broader Implications
- Strengthening religious freedom: The judgment reinforces that religious conversion is a core component of freedom of conscience and belief.
- Safeguarding personal autonomy: By protecting adult individuals’ right to convert or enter inter-faith marriage voluntarily, the Court affirmed the constitutional promise of personal liberty.
- Limiting state overreach: The ruling reasserts that the state cannot interfere in intimate, religious, or personal decisions unless there is clear evidence of coercion or illegal activity.
- Guidance for future legislation: The decision offers a blueprint for other states with similar laws to ensure they comply with constitutional safeguards.
Immediate and Long‑Term Effects
- Legal clarity: Individuals are no longer compelled to report their intention to convert, and marriages involving inter-faith conversions can proceed without fear of prosecution.
- Law enforcement direction: Police and administrative authorities must now differentiate between coercive conversion and consensual change of faith or marriage, intervening only when actual force or fraud is involved.
- Legislative review encouraged: States with similar legislation may need to revisit their laws, eliminating vague terms and ensuring only coercive or exploitative conversions are penalized.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s verdict is a significant reaffirmation of constitutional freedoms in India. It underscores that the right to choose one's religion or partner—without interference—is not only protected by the Constitution but must be shielded from legislative overreach. By preserving personal liberty, upholding religious freedom, and limiting arbitrary state action, this judgment sets an important standard for future lawmaking and judicial review.
RELATED Blog
0 comments