Conversion bogey

The Supreme Court’s February 2,2026 decision to scrutinize anti-conversion laws across twelve states marks a pivotal moment for religious liberty in India. Christian organizations have rightly challenged these statutes, not merely as a sectarian concern but as a fundamental constitutional question: Can the state legitimately police the conscience of its citizens? The laws under examination-spanning from Gujarat, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Haryana and Rajasthan- ostensibly target conversions achieved through “force, fraud or allurement.” In theory, this seems reasonable. Protecting citizens from genuine deception aligns with constitutional values. Yet the gap between theory and practice has widened dangerously. These laws define “allurement” so expansively that providing education or healthcare-traditional charitable works of religious institutions-becomes legally suspect. They demand pre-conversion notification, impose two-year jail sentences, and crucially, they invite vigilante enforcement. This architecture transforms legitimate governance into a mechanism for religious suppression. The 1977 Stanislaus precedent established a distinction- propagating religion through discourse is constitutionally protected; converting others through fraud is not. Courts reasoned this preserves public order while preventing communal disharmony. However , here lies the interpretive problem. When bureaucratic obstacles replace criminal restrictions, when neighbors become informants, and when charitable acts trigger investigations, the law ceases protecting against fraud and becomes an instrument of control. The enforcement reality proves damning. Minorities-Christians, Muslims, and vulnerable caste groups-face disproportionate scrutiny. Allegations typically follow interfaith marriages, educational initiatives, or small prayer meetings. Accused persons must prove their conversion was voluntary, inverting fundamental criminal principles. Even dismissed cases leave emotional, financial, and reputational wreckage. Meanwhile, faith-based NGOs providing services to marginalized communities operate under constant suspicion, reducing their ability to serve the poorest. The entire irony of ‘protecting Hinduism’ can be understood through the teachings of many Hindu philosophical traditions, particularly Vedantic thought, which explicitly emphasize individual liberty in choosing one’s spiritual path toward Moksha. The ten principal Upanishads consistently affirm that no external force should police such deeply personal decisions. Yet right wing political actors have weaponized these very laws against the religious freedom that Hindu philosophy itself protects. This internal contradiction deserves serious judicial attention. Articles 21 and 25 of India’s Constitution guarantee personal liberty and freedom of conscience. These protections mean little if citizens fear arrest for changing faith, if families face social ostracism, or if communities experience mob violence justified by law’s veneer of legitimacy. The petitioners’ claim that these provisions are “vague and overbroad” reflects a genuine constitutional crisis. When “allurement” encompasses employment or material benefits, when “fraud” remains undefined, when third-party complaints require no evidence of actual deception- the law becomes unpredictably punitive. International human rights standards reinforce this concern. The right to change religion is globally recognized as fundamental to human dignity. India’s constitutional architecture reflects this understanding, yet these state laws contradict it. The Supreme Court must recognize that maintaining public order does not require criminalizing conscience. True constitutional stability rests on protecting unpopular freedoms, particularly for minorities. These anti-conversion statutes, regardless of stated intent, function as tools of religious control. They weaponize state machinery against voluntary belief and reduce religious minorities to second-class citizens. The Court should strike down these laws and reaffirm a foundational principle: in matters of faith, individual freedom remains paramount. India’s secular constitution demands nothing less.