Open Access Research Article
White Black Legal – International Law Journal · ISSN 2581-8503
ANTI-CONVERSION LEGISLATION IN INDIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF STATE-LEVEL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS
Read the Full Research Paper
Access the complete open-access article in PDF format. No login is required.
Abstract
ANTI-CONVERSION
LEGISLATION IN INDIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF STATE-LEVEL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS
AUTHORED BY - DR.
MOOL RAJ SINGH
Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Monad
University, Hapur
Abstract
Anti-conversion legislation in India
represents a significant area of constitutional and legislative debate
concerning religious freedom, individual autonomy, public order and the
regulatory authority of the State. Several Indian states have enacted laws to
prohibit religious conversion allegedly obtained through force, fraud,
coercion, undue influence or unlawful inducement. However, differences in
statutory definitions, procedural requirements, penalties and enforcement
mechanisms have created a diverse legal landscape requiring systematic
comparative examination. This study aims to analyse the anti-conversion legal
frameworks of selected Indian states, with particular emphasis on Uttar
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttarakhand and Odisha. It examines the
constitutional foundations of these laws, especially Articles 14, 21 and 25 of
the Constitution of India, and evaluates their compatibility with equality,
personal liberty and freedom of conscience. Adopting a doctrinal and
comparative research methodology, the study relies on constitutional
provisions, state legislation, judicial precedents, government documents and
relevant scholarly literature. The analysis focuses on variations in the
definition of unlawful conversion, prior declaration and notification
requirements, complaint mechanisms, burden of proof, criminal penalties and
procedural safeguards. It also considers the judicial interpretation of
conversion-related disputes, particularly those involving interfaith marriages
and the voluntary exercise of religious choice. The study seeks to identify
similarities, differences and potential inconsistencies among state-level legal
frameworks while assessing their implications for constitutional governance and
individual rights. It argues that effective regulation should distinguish
genuine instances of coercive conversion from voluntary changes of religious
belief. The research aims to contribute to informed legislative reform by
highlighting the importance of precise statutory language, proportionate restrictions,
fair procedures and effective judicial oversight in maintaining a
constitutionally balanced approach to religious conversion in India.
Keywords: Anti-Conversion Legislation,
Religious Freedom, Constitutional Law, Comparative Legal Analysis, Individual
Autonomy.
Introduction
Anti-conversion
legislation in India represents an important area of constitutional,
legislative and socio-legal debate concerning religious freedom, individual
autonomy and the regulatory authority of the State. Religious conversion
involves a person's freedom to adopt, change or renounce religious beliefs
according to individual conscience. However, concerns arise when conversion is
alleged to have been obtained through force, fraud, coercion, undue influence
or unlawful inducement. The principal legislative challenge is to prevent such
unlawful practices without unnecessarily restricting the voluntary exercise of
religious freedom. Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom
of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion,
subject to public order, morality, health and the other provisions of Part III.[1]
Articles 14 and 21 further guarantee equality before the law and protection of
life and personal liberty.[2]
These constitutional provisions establish the framework within which state
anti-conversion laws must be assessed.
India
does not have a single, comprehensive central statute governing religious
conversion across the country. Instead, several states have enacted their own
freedom of religion or unlawful conversion laws, resulting in differences in
statutory definitions, procedural obligations, criminal penalties and
enforcement mechanisms. Odisha enacted the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act,
1967, followed by the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968.[3]
Other states, including Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal
Pradesh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh, have also adopted
legislation regulating religious conversion, although their statutory
provisions and implementation arrangements differ. This state-level diversity
provides an important basis for comparative legal research. Examining these
laws together helps identify common legislative objectives, differences in
regulatory approaches and potential inconsistencies in their relationship with
constitutional guarantees.
The
constitutional debate surrounding these enactments was significantly shaped by
the Supreme Court's decision in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(1977) 1 SCC 677.[4]
The Court upheld the relevant Madhya Pradesh and Orissa legislation and
distinguished the right to propagate religious beliefs from an unrestricted
right to convert another person. The judgment remains a foundational precedent
for understanding the constitutional limits of religious propagation and the
State's authority to regulate conversion obtained through prohibited means.
Nevertheless, the interpretation of individual autonomy has also developed
through subsequent constitutional jurisprudence. In K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v.
Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a
fundamental right, while Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368,
emphasised autonomy in matters of faith, marriage and personal choice.[5]
Although neither judgment directly invalidated anti-conversion legislation,
both provide relevant constitutional principles for evaluating restrictions
that may affect an individual's religious identity and personal decisions.
Evolution and Diversity of State-Level
Anti-Conversion Laws
The
evolution of anti-conversion legislation demonstrates how different states have
approached the regulation of religious conversion according to their
legislative priorities and administrative frameworks. The Orissa Freedom of
Religion Act, 1967, and the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968,
represent early legislative efforts in this area.[6]
Subsequent enactments introduced variations in the definition of unlawful
conversion, the treatment of allurement and inducement, procedural
declarations, complaint requirements and penalties. A comparative assessment by
the Legislative Department and research organisations such as PRS Legislative
Research illustrates the differences among state laws, particularly concerning
prior permission, public notice, conversion through marriage and enhanced
punishments for offences involving vulnerable persons.[7]
These differences make a state-wise examination necessary to understand the
practical scope of conversion regulation.
For
instance, the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act,
2021, and the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021, contain provisions
addressing conversion through prohibited means and prescribing criminal
consequences. Gujarat's legislation includes administrative requirements
relating to conversion, while Uttarakhand's framework contains provisions
concerning marriages allegedly undertaken for the purpose of unlawful
conversion.[8]
Such provisions raise questions about the relationship between administrative
supervision and individual freedom. The comparison must therefore consider not
only the stated objective of preventing coercion but also the legal
consequences of non-compliance, the authority empowered to initiate proceedings
and the safeguards available to the persons concerned.
The
constitutional dimension becomes particularly important when procedural
obligations affect privacy, religious identity and the ability of adults to
make independent decisions. A comparative study should examine whether notice
and declaration requirements are proportionate to the legitimate objective of
preventing unlawful conversion, whether the statutory definitions provide
sufficient legal certainty and whether the burden of proof is consistent with
principles of criminal justice. It should also distinguish between enacted
legislation, amendments, proposed bills and provisions whose implementation or
judicial status may have changed. This distinction is essential for ensuring
that comparative conclusions are based on the law applicable in each state during
the period under examination.
Significance, Scope and Objectives of the
Comparative Study
The
present study seeks to examine selected state-level anti-conversion laws
through a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology. It analyses
constitutional provisions, legislative enactments, judicial precedents and
relevant legal scholarship to identify similarities, differences and unresolved
questions. Particular emphasis is placed on statutory definitions, conversion
procedures, marriage-related provisions, criminal penalties, complaint
mechanisms and evidentiary requirements. The study also evaluates how courts
reconcile the prevention of coercive conversion with the constitutional
protection of voluntary religious choice. The significance of this research
lies in its capacity to identify areas where statutory ambiguity, procedural
complexity or inconsistent implementation may create difficulties for
individuals and enforcement authorities. Ultimately, the comparative analysis
aims to contribute to a clearer understanding of the relationship between state
legislative authority, constitutional rights and religious freedom. It also
seeks to identify possible reforms that preserve the legitimate objective of
preventing coercion while ensuring equality before the law, personal liberty,
due process and respect for freedom of conscience.
Research methodology
The
present study adopts a doctrinal and comparative legal research methodology to
examine anti-conversion legislation across selected Indian states. The research
is primarily based on secondary sources, including the Constitution of India,
state-specific anti-conversion statutes, legislative amendments, judicial
precedents of the Supreme Court and High Courts, government reports, law
commission publications, legal journals and scholarly books. The study focuses
on the legal frameworks of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttarakhand
and Odisha. A comparative analytical approach is employed to evaluate
differences in statutory definitions, declaration and notification
requirements, complaint procedures, criminal penalties, burden of proof and
procedural safeguards. Particular attention is given to Articles 14, 21 and 25
of the Constitution of India and their interpretation in relevant judicial
decisions. The research also assesses the implications of these legislative
variations for religious freedom, individual autonomy, equality and due
process. The study is qualitative and aims to identify legislative
inconsistencies and suggest constitutionally appropriate reforms.
Analysis
1.
Comparative Legal Analysis of State-Level Anti-Conversion Frameworks
The
comparative analysis of anti-conversion legislation in India requires an
examination of the relationship between legislative objectives, constitutional
guarantees and judicial interpretation. The first objective of the study is to
compare the legal frameworks of selected states, particularly Uttar Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttarakhand and Odisha. The second objective is to
evaluate their implications for religious freedom, individual autonomy,
equality and procedural fairness. A doctrinal methodology enables this
comparison through constitutional provisions, statutory texts and judicial
precedents, rather than relying on unverified assumptions about the
implementation of these laws.
The
constitutional foundation is Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which
protects freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate
religion, subject to constitutionally prescribed limitations. Articles 14 and
21 additionally protect equality and life and personal liberty.[9]
In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 677, the Supreme
Court upheld the relevant anti-conversion legislation of Madhya Pradesh and
Odisha, holding that the right to propagate religion does not include an
unrestricted fundamental right to convert another person.[10]
This judgment remains central to the constitutional analysis of state
conversion laws. However, it should not be interpreted as authorising
restrictions on every voluntary conversion. The legal distinction between
conversion through unlawful means and the independent exercise of religious
conscience remains essential.
State
legislation differs in its terminology, procedural requirements, offences and
penalties. The Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, and the Madhya Pradesh
Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, represent early examples of state
regulation. Later enactments in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Uttarakhand
introduced their own regulatory arrangements, including provisions concerning
declarations, administrative authorities and conversion associated with
marriage.[11]
These differences require a provision-by-provision comparison. A statute's
stated purpose alone cannot establish whether every restriction is
constitutionally justified; its wording, scope, operation and safeguards must
also be examined.
2.
Comparative assessment of statutory provisions
The
comparative framework is summarised in Table 1. The table identifies important
differences in the legislative design of selected states and highlights the
need to examine both substantive prohibitions and procedural safeguards.
Table 1: Comparative
Features of Selected State Anti-Conversion Laws
|
State
|
Principal Legislation
|
Important Areas of Regulation
|
|
Odisha
|
Orissa Freedom of Religion
Act, 1967
|
Prohibition of conversion
through force, fraud and inducement
|
|
Madhya Pradesh
|
Madhya Pradesh Freedom of
Religion Act, 2021
|
Prohibited conversion,
declarations, penalties and complaint procedures
|
|
Uttar Pradesh
|
Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021
|
Unlawful conversion,
marriage-related provisions, declarations and criminal liability
|
|
Gujarat
|
Gujarat Freedom of Religion
Act, 2003, as amended
|
Conversion procedures,
prohibited means and statutory permissions
|
|
Uttarakhand
|
Uttarakhand Freedom of
Religion Act, 2018, as amended
|
Unlawful conversion,
procedural requirements and penalties
|
Source: Prepared by the researcher
on the basis of the relevant state enactments and PRS Legislative Research's
comparative analysis of state conversion laws. The table is indicative and does
not reproduce every amendment or procedural requirement.
A
significant difference concerns the procedures required before and after
conversion. The comparative review by PRS Legislative Research identifies
advance declarations, notification to district authorities and police inquiries
among the requirements introduced under the Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh
frameworks. It also identifies differences in complaint eligibility, the
treatment of reconversion and the allocation of the burden of proof.[12]
These requirements may facilitate investigation of allegations of coercion, but
they also raise questions concerning privacy, administrative discretion and the
potential exposure of an individual's religious choices.
The
constitutional assessment should therefore consider whether procedural
obligations are clearly defined, necessary for a legitimate purpose and
proportionate to the conduct being regulated. Prior notification is not
identical to a requirement for prior permission, and the two should not be
treated as interchangeable. Similarly, statutory provisions concerning
conversion associated with marriage must be analysed according to their precise
wording and the applicable judicial interpretation. A comparative study must
also distinguish enacted and operative provisions from proposed amendments and
provisions whose constitutional validity is under challenge.
3.
Comparative analysis of landmark judicial
decisions
Judicial
precedents are central to determining how anti-conversion legislation should be
interpreted and applied. Table 2 identifies 17 decisions relevant to the
constitutional and procedural questions raised by state conversion laws. The
cases are classified according to whether they directly address conversion
legislation or provide broader principles relevant to religious freedom,
personal autonomy and criminal procedure.
Table 2: Landmark Judicial Decisions Relevant
to Anti-Conversion Legislation in India
|
No.
|
Case and Citation
|
Principal Relevance
|
|
1
|
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(1977) 1 SCC 677
|
Direct constitutional challenge to
anti-conversion legislation
|
|
2
|
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay,
AIR 1954 SC 388
|
Freedom of religious belief and practice
|
|
3
|
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3
SCC 615
|
Protection of sincere religious conscience
|
|
4
|
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC
1
|
Constitutional secularism
|
|
5
|
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC
635
|
Conversion and matrimonial obligations
|
|
6
|
Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC
224
|
Conversion and the law of bigamy
|
|
7
|
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC
181
|
Limits on successive FIRs
|
|
8
|
Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2006)
5 SCC 475
|
Autonomy in marriage and protection against
harassment
|
|
9
|
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC
273
|
Safeguards against unnecessary arrest
|
|
10
|
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC
368
|
Adult autonomy in matters of faith and
marriage
|
|
11
|
Nandakumar v. State of
Kerala, (2018) 16 SCC 602
|
Personal autonomy and adult relationships
|
|
12
|
K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India,
(2017) 10 SCC 1
|
Privacy and decisional autonomy
|
|
13
|
Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC
1
|
Personal autonomy and dignity
|
|
14
|
Priyanshi @ Km Shamreen v. State of U.P.,
Writ-C No. 14288 of 2020
|
Conversion and marriage; approach of the
Allahabad High Court
|
|
15
|
Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra v. State of
U.P., Writ-C No. 57068 of 2014
|
Conversion and the assessment of religious
belief
|
|
16
|
Raquib Imam Ansari v. State of U.P., decided
11 February 2025
|
Application of provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh conversion statute
|
|
17
|
Rajendra Bihari Lal v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 1249
|
Statutory complaint requirements and
proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Act
|
Source:
Prepared by the researcher from reported Supreme Court and High Court decisions
and case-law databases. Decisions concerning privacy, marriage and criminal
procedure are included as relevant constitutional or procedural authorities,
not as direct rulings on the validity of every anti-conversion statute.
The table demonstrates that the
relevant judicial framework extends beyond decisions directly challenging
conversion statutes. Stainislaus addresses the constitutional foundation of
such legislation, whereas Puttaswamy and Shafin Jahan supply principles relevant
to privacy and individual autonomy. The distinction is important: a decision
recognising a general fundamental right does not, without further analysis,
invalidate a specific statutory provision. Courts must examine the particular
restriction, the legislative objective and the circumstances of the case.
The Supreme Court's decision in
Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 1249, is particularly
relevant to statutory enforcement. The judgment examined proceedings arising
under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act,
2021, including the legal requirements governing complaints. It illustrates
that even where legislation pursues a legitimate objective, criminal
proceedings must comply with the statute's express procedural conditions.[13]
The decision should not be interpreted as a blanket declaration invalidating
every provision of the Uttar Pradesh Act.
Similarly, Priyanshi and Noor Jahan
Begum illustrate the difficulties faced by courts when assessing religious
conversion associated with marriage. These decisions require careful reading in
light of their factual circumstances and subsequent Supreme Court
jurisprudence. The mere occurrence of conversion before marriage does not, by
itself, establish that force or fraud has occurred. Conversely, allegations of
coercion must be examined on the available evidence rather than dismissed
solely because an adult has entered a relationship voluntarily.
4. Constitutional assessment and
implications for legislative reform
The comparative findings reveal
three principal issues. First, differences in statutory language may create
uncertainty about the boundary between prohibited inducement and lawful
religious persuasion. Second, procedural requirements may affect the privacy
and autonomy of individuals seeking to change their religion. Third, variations
in complaint eligibility, evidentiary burdens and criminal penalties may
produce different legal consequences for comparable conduct across states. The
research must therefore evaluate whether each restriction is sufficiently
precise and proportionate, rather than assuming that every state-level
provision has identical constitutional implications.
The Supreme Court's decisions in
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1, and Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of
Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615, offer broader constitutional principles concerning
secularism and freedom of conscience.[14]
Meanwhile, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, reinforces the
importance of safeguards against unnecessary arrest.[15]
These principles are relevant to ensuring that conversion-related
investigations remain consistent with constitutional governance and fair
criminal procedure.
Legislative reform should prioritise
clear definitions, transparent procedures, impartial investigation and
effective judicial oversight. Statutory requirements should distinguish
voluntary conversion from conduct established to involve coercion, fraud or
other prohibited means. Courts should assess allegations on evidence and apply
procedural safeguards consistently. Comparative analysis should also examine
whether particular restrictions are supported by a legitimate purpose and
whether less intrusive measures could achieve that purpose. These
recommendations do not presume that all state laws are unconstitutional;
rather, they identify questions requiring state-specific legal and judicial
evaluation.
Conclusion
The comparative study demonstrates
that anti-conversion legislation in India comprises diverse state-level
frameworks operating within a common constitutional structure. Rev. Stainislaus
provides the principal precedent concerning the regulation of unlawful
conversion, while subsequent judgments contribute principles of privacy,
personal autonomy, equality and due process. The analysis confirms that
meaningful comparison must extend beyond statutory titles to examine
definitions, declaration requirements, complaint procedures, penalties and
judicial interpretation. A balanced legal framework should prevent coercive
conversion while respecting voluntary religious choice. Clear legislation,
proportionate safeguards and consistent judicial review are therefore essential
to reconciling state regulatory objectives with the constitutional protection
of freedom of conscience.
Suggestions
Reforming
anti-conversion legislation requires evidence-based policymaking,
administrative accountability, consistent judicial interpretation and effective
protection of constitutional rights across states.
1.
Independent Monitoring: Establish
independent review mechanisms to examine complaints, enforcement practices and
potential procedural irregularities.
2.
Protection of Complainants: Introduce
safeguards against malicious complaints while ensuring genuine allegations of
coercion receive appropriate investigation.
3.
Privacy Protection: Restrict unnecessary
disclosure of personal religious information and protect confidential
conversion-related records.
4.
Legal Awareness: Conduct awareness
programmes explaining religious freedom, lawful conversion procedures and
available legal remedies.
5.
Periodic Legislative Review: Evaluate
state laws periodically using judicial developments, implementation evidence
and constitutional proportionality standards.
Future scope
Future
research may undertake empirical studies on the implementation of
anti-conversion laws across Indian states, examine recent judicial
developments, compare international religious freedom frameworks, assess
impacts on minority communities, and evaluate procedural safeguards. Further
investigation may also explore legislative harmonisation, privacy concerns,
gender justice and constitutionally proportionate regulatory approaches.
Footnotes
1.
INDIA CONST. art.
25, available at India Code, Article 25: Freedom of Conscience and
Religion (last accessed on 15
September 2026).
2.
INDIA CONST. arts.
14 and 21, available at Supreme Court of India — Constitution (last accessed on 16 September 2026).
3.
The Orissa Freedom
of Religion Act, 1967; The Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968,
discussed in Congressional Research Service, State Anti-Conversion
Laws in India (last accessed on 17
September 2026).
4.
Rev. Stainislaus
v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 677, available at Indian
Kanoon (last accessed on 18
September 2026).
5.
K.S. Puttaswamy
(Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1; Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018)
16 SCC 368, available at Indian Kanoon — Puttaswamy and Indian
Kanoon — Shafin Jahan (last accessed on
19 September 2026).
6.
The Orissa Freedom
of Religion Act, 1967; The Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968,
discussed in PRS Legislative Research, Anti-Conversion Legislation:
Comparison of the UP Ordinances with Other State Laws (last accessed on 15 September 2026).
7.
PRS Legislative
Research, Inter-State Comparison of Religious Conversion Laws (last accessed on 16 September 2026).
8.
The Uttar Pradesh
Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021; The Madhya Pradesh
Freedom of Religion Act, 2021; The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003; The
Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, discussed in Congressional Research Service, State Anti-Conversion
Laws in India and PRS Legislative Research (last accessed on 17 September 2026).
9.
INDIA CONST. arts.
14, 21 and 25, available at Constitution
of India (accessed on 9 October
2026).
10. Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1
SCC 677, available at Indian Kanoon
(accessed on 9 October 2026).
11. PRS Legislative Research, “Anti-Conversion
Legislation: Comparison of the UP Ordinances with Other State Laws,” available
at PRS Legislative Research (accessed on 9 October 2026).
12. PRS Legislative Research, “Anti-Conversion
Legislation: Comparison of the UP Ordinances with Other State Laws,” available
at PRS Legislative Research (accessed on 9 October 2026).
13. Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025
INSC 1249, available through Indian Kanoon
(accessed on 9 October 2026).
14. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1; Bijoe
Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615, available through Indian Kanoon — S.R. Bommai and Indian Kanoon — Bijoe Emmanuel (accessed on 9 October 2026).
15. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273,
available through Indian Kanoon
(accessed on 9 October 2026).
[1] INDIA CONST. art. 25, available at
India Code, Article 25: Freedom of
Conscience and Religion
(last accessed on 15 September 2026).
[2] INDIA CONST. arts. 14 and 21,
available at Supreme Court of India —
Constitution (last
accessed on 16 September 2026).
[3] The Orissa Freedom of Religion
Act, 1967; The Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, discussed in Congressional Research Service,
State Anti-Conversion Laws in India
(last accessed on 17 September 2026).
[4] Rev. Stainislaus v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 677, available at Indian
Kanoon (last
accessed on 18 September 2026).
[5] K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union
of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1; Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368,
available at Indian Kanoon — Puttaswamy and Indian
Kanoon — Shafin Jahan
(last accessed on 19 September 2026).
[6] The Orissa Freedom of Religion
Act, 1967; The Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, discussed in PRS Legislative Research,
Anti-Conversion Legislation: Comparison of the UP Ordinances with Other State
Laws (last
accessed on 15 September 2026).
[7] PRS Legislative Research, Inter-State Comparison of Religious
Conversion Laws
(last accessed on 16 September 2026).
[8] The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021; The Madhya Pradesh Freedom of
Religion Act, 2021; The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003; The Uttarakhand
Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, discussed in Congressional Research Service,
State Anti-Conversion Laws in India
and PRS Legislative Research (last accessed on 17 September
2026).
[9] INDIA CONST. arts. 14, 21 and 25,
available at Constitution of India (accessed on 9 October 2026).
[10] Rev. Stainislaus v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 677, available at Indian
Kanoon (accessed
on 9 October 2026).
[11] PRS Legislative Research,
“Anti-Conversion Legislation: Comparison of the UP Ordinances with Other State
Laws,” available at PRS Legislative Research (accessed on 9 October 2026).
[12] PRS Legislative Research,
“Anti-Conversion Legislation: Comparison of the UP Ordinances with Other State
Laws,” available at PRS Legislative Research (accessed on 9 October 2026).
[13] Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 1249, available through Indian Kanoon (accessed on 9 October 2026).
[14] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India,
(1994) 3 SCC 1; Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615, available
through Indian Kanoon — S.R. Bommai and Indian Kanoon — Bijoe Emmanuel (accessed on 9 October 2026).
[15] Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar,
(2014) 8 SCC 273, available through Indian Kanoon (accessed on 9 October 2026).
How to Cite This Article
DR. MOOL RAJ SINGH, ANTI-CONVERSION LEGISLATION IN INDIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF STATE-LEVEL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS., White Black Legal – International Law Journal, ISSN: 2581-8503, Vol. Volume 4, Issue VOLUME 4 ISSUE 2, October 2026, pp. 1330-1344. Available at: https://www.whiteblacklegal.co.in/details/anti-conversion-legislation-in-india-a-comparative-analysis-of-state-level-legal-frameworks
Author & Publication Record
Authors: DR. MOOL RAJ SINGH
Registration ID: 107211 | Published Paper ID: WBL7211
Year: Oct- 2026 | Volume: 4 | Issue: 2
Approved ISSN: 2581-8503 | Country: Delhi, India
Page No.: 1330-1344
Full Text Preview
Open in New Tab
Copied