Anti-Conversion Laws: Why SC's December Delay Risks Fuelling Communal Fires
India’s legal and political landscape has long wrestled with the complex issue of religious conversion. At the center of this debate lies the question — where does one draw the line between genuine faith and coerced belief? The Supreme Court’s decision to defer hearings on the challenge to anti-conversion laws to December has sparked unease among legal experts, human rights defenders, and minority groups. For many, this delay is not merely procedural; it could deepen the communal fissures that have already widened in several states.
In recent years, anti-conversion legislations — officially known as Freedom of Religion Acts — have been passed or strengthened in states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttarakhand, and Himachal Pradesh. These laws criminalize religious conversions achieved through “force, fraud, or allurement.”
While their stated intent is to preserve religious freedom by preventing exploitation, their implementation tells a more troubling story. In many cases, they have been used to harass interfaith couples and members of minority communities, especially under the specter of so-called “love jihad.”
The Supreme Court is currently hearing petitions that challenge the constitutional validity of these laws. The petitioners argue that such legislations violate the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 25 of the Constitution — equality, personal liberty, and freedom of conscience. However, by postponing the matter yet again, the Court risks sending a signal that the growing misuse of these laws can continue unchecked.
Ground reports from several states reveal a disturbing pattern: arrests based on suspicion rather than evidence, community tensions escalating after police intervention, and families torn apart under the fear of criminal prosecution. In Uttar Pradesh alone, dozens of cases have been registered under its 2020 anti-conversion law, yet convictions remain negligible. This imbalance exposes the political undertone of the enforcement — where accusation often becomes punishment.
The delay also raises deeper questions about the role of the judiciary in moments of communal sensitivity. The Court, as the constitutional guardian, is expected to act swiftly when fundamental freedoms are at stake. Postponing the case to December — amid rising polarisation and upcoming state elections — risks normalising a climate where religious identity becomes a pretext for legal persecution.
At the heart of the controversy lies a philosophical dilemma. The Constitution guarantees the freedom to “profess, practice and propagate religion” under Article 25. Yet, anti conversion laws, in their broad wording, often criminalize even voluntary conversions if they involve material or emotional persuasion. What constitutes “allurement”? Is offering education or shelter an inducement, or an act of compassion? These ambiguities give the state immense discretion — and in a politically charged environment, discretion easily becomes discrimination.
Critics argue that the language of “protection” in these laws is deeply paternalistic, assuming that individuals, particularly women or those from marginalized groups, are incapable of making autonomous choices about faith. This undermines both personal liberty and the secular spirit enshrined in the Constitution. The misuse of these provisions to target interfaith marriages reflects not moral guardianship, but moral policing — a dangerous encroachment on private life.
On the other hand, proponents of the laws insist that conversion through deceit or inducement must be curbed to prevent demographic manipulation. However, without clear definitions and procedural safeguards, the law’s misuse becomes its defining feature rather than its exception.
The Supreme Court now stands at a crossroads. Its eventual judgment will not only decide the fate of these laws but also define the balance between religious freedom and state control in modern India. Each day of delay risks emboldening those who weaponize faith for political gain, and weakens the very constitutional promises of liberty and equality.
India’s secularism is not just about coexistence — it’s about trust in the state’s neutrality. By deferring its hearing, the Court may have postponed more than a legal question; it may have postponed a much-needed reaffirmation of constitutional courage. And in times when communal tempers run high, that silence speaks louder than any verdict.
