Christians Support Archdiocese of Bombay’s Concerns on the Proposed Anti-Conversion Law in Maharashtra
Mumbai: The Christian community is uniting with the Archdiocese of Bombay to oppose the proposed “Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 2026” (anti-conversion bill) in Maharashtra, expressing the belief that it threatens religious freedom and individual rights. The Mumbai-based NGO Christi Sevak Federation (CSF), led by Joseph Dias, has backed the Archdiocese’s objections, urging the state government to reconsider the bill’s provisions.
Dias highlighted specific aspects of the proposed law that warrant re-evaluation, including the requirement for prior approval from a designated authority before conversion, necessitating a 60-day notice and registration within 25 days post-conversion. He argued that this provision could be exploited by malicious individuals or communal groups to raise objections, potentially leading to police investigations of consenting adult couples and placing the burden of proof of voluntary conversion on the accused.
Furthermore, Dias expressed concern over the stricter penalties outlined in the bill, which include imprisonment of up to 7 years and a fine of up to Rs. 7 Lakh, with the offense being non-bailable. Drawing on the experiences of other states with similar laws, he warned that such measures could subject interfaith and intercaste couples to harassment, arrests, court cases, and social ostracization. The mandatory notice period, he added, may infringe upon privacy and personal liberty.
Another point of contention is the bill’s stance on interfaith marriages, potentially deeming them invalid and stipulating that children from such unions follow the mother’s original religion. While the bill grants these children succession rights in the property of both parents and entitles them to maintenance, along with granting custody to the mother, the implications for marital freedom remain a concern.
The CSF founder also criticized the bill’s increased penalties for the conversion of minors, individuals of unsound mind, women, members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, and repeat offenders, as well as in cases of mass conversion. He emphasized that the government should not regulate women’s rights or monitor personal relationships through legal mechanisms.
Moreover, Dias raised concerns about the bill’s potential impact on institutions, including registered and unregistered legal entities, educational institutions, religious, social, or charitable organizations, orphanages, old-age homes, hospitals, associations of persons, and NGOs, all of which could face criminal action under the proposed law.
The bill’s definition of “allurement or temptation,” encompassing gifts, gratification, easy money, material benefits, employment, free education, promises of marriage, better lifestyles, divine healing, detrimentally portraying religious practices, and glorifying one religion over another, was also flagged as problematic. Dias cautioned that such broad terms could criminalise voluntary conversions, particularly given that any relative of the converted individual can file a First Information Report (FIR) and trigger a police investigation.
While affirming the community’s opposition to conversions obtained through force, fraud, coercion, or inducement, Dias stressed the need to prevent the persecution of interfaith and inter-caste couples and to reconsider the bill’s provisions in light of vague definitions and the inclusion of marriage between consenting adults. He noted that Maharashtra appears to have followed the example of Uttar Pradesh, which has some of the strictest anti-conversion laws in the country.
Dias highlighted that numerous legal challenges are pending before courts across a dozen states against these anti-conversion laws, citing potential violations of Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion. He also pointed to potential infringements on the right to privacy, as established in landmark judgments, and the right of consenting adults to marry partners of their choice.
Furthermore, Dias argued that vague definitions within the laws could expose NGOs, educational/charitable institutions, and religious clergy to arbitrary police action and pressure from fringe elements. He also criticized the requirement for the accused to prove the conversion was voluntary, which he said violates the criminal law principle of presumption of innocence.
Dias concluded by noting that such anti-conversion laws may conflict with international freedom of religion standards, particularly Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes the right to change one’s religion or belief. He argued that the proposed law adds unnecessary administrative burdens and monitoring, diverting attention from more pressing issues. He also raised concerns about the Maharashtra bill’s provision for government assistance and rehabilitation for women deemed victims of conversion.
Referencing the evolution of anti-conversion laws in India, Dias pointed out that initial state laws, such as those in Odisha and Arunachal Pradesh, did not include marriage-conversion clauses and had more lenient punishments. He suggested that the recent trend among states like Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Uttar Pradesh to impose stricter provisions reflects a concerning competition that could lead to increased persecution of minorities and harassment of interfaith couples, despite legal safeguards for privacy and personal autonomy.
