The Bombay High Court has observed that religious conversion solely for the purpose of marriage cannot be permitted, while affirming an individual's freedom to change religion, during a hearing on a challenge to the constitutional validity of Maharashtra's recently enacted anti-conversion law.
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, criminalises religious conversions obtained through force, fraud, coercion, allurement, misrepresentation, undue influence or marriage. Section 6 of the Act requires individuals to give 60 days' prior notice before converting.
The petition, filed by a 70-year-old Islamic preacher from Thane, argued that the law restricts the freedom to propagate religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.
However, the bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh C Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna observed that the legislation was intended to preserve the secular fabric of society and address conversions involving force or coercion.
"This is just to maintain the secular fabric of society. The state is only concerned with coercion or religious conversion with force. Anyone has freedom to change their religion. But just for the purpose of marriage, conversion cannot be permitted," the bench said.
Advocates Yusuf Muchhala, Mateen Shaikh, Ejaz Maqbool and Shahid Nadeem, appearing for the petitioner, challenged the definition of "allurement" under Section 2(a) of the Act. They also questioned the stringent pre-conversion procedures prescribed under Sections 6 and 7.
The judges reiterated that individuals were free to change their religion but questioned the practice of converting a day before marriage.
The bench also questioned how the petitioner was directly aggrieved by the legislation, observing that the plea lacked foundational facts and amounted to an academic challenge.
"Show that you were imparting your religion and, because of State intervention, you were not able to impart. You file a better petition. So that we can have a better idea of what the ground is reality. There is absolute silence in your petition. You can also show how you have been inconvenienced while imparting," the bench said.
The court declined to entertain the petition in the absence of specific factual pleadings and granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh plea with adequate supporting facts.
Following the court's observations, the petitioner withdrew the plea, stating that a fresh petition would be filed soon.
- Ends