Madhya Pradesh’s death penalty proposal for forced conversions shuns the judiciary’s principled stand on both capital punishment and conversions

ON MARCH 8, THE MADHYA PRADESH CHIEF MINISTER, at an event organised to mark International Women’s Day, announced that the Government of Madhya Pradesh would make a provision for death penalty to those involved in the religious conversions of women, along the lines of punishment for rape of minor girls. Religious conversion has been a matter of debate in India for a long time. Many states in India already have legislations to regulate religious conversions in their states. Madhya Pradesh is one of the states with existing laws criminalising the forceful religious conversion of girls in the state. The new proposal, however, escalates the punishment to the most extreme form, i.e., capital punishment for forced conversion, particularly of women and girls. The government proposed an amendment to The Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 (‘MPFRA’), to include provisions prescribing the death penalty. Constitutionality of anti-conversion laws remains in limbo The Madhya Pradesh government’s move to introduce the death penalty for forceful conversion violates the fundamental right to freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 25. Article 25 not only protects an individual’s beliefs but also includes acts of religious expression and propagation of religion to expand religious outreach. As per the provisions of the MPFRA, FIRs can also be filed by family members of the person converted. Resultantly, there are high chances of false litigations against the people involved in the religious outreach drives, even in cases of voluntary conversions, due to the family not supporting the conversion. .The Supreme Court has consolidated multiple PILs challenging anti-conversion laws of five states, including the MPFRA on the grounds of violation of Articles 14, 21, and 25. .The Supreme Court has consolidated multiple PILs challenging anti-conversion laws of five states, including the MPFRA on the grounds of violation of Articles 14, 21, and 25. At a brief hearing on April 30, 2025, the bench led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice P V Sanjay Kumar refused to hear isolated arguments on the matter, and to ensure a comprehensive hearing of all sides, directed that the batch of petitions challenging various state anti-conversion laws to be listed in the week commencing May 13, 2025. Similarly, the Supreme Court, while considering a plea challenging Uttar Pradesh’s anti-conversion law on May 2 this year, the bench again scheduled the matter for the week commencing May 13, 2025, to hear it along with other pending petitions. However, the matter is still pending before the Supreme Court. Some provisions of MPFRA 2021, including Sections 5 and 10, are already under challenge in the top Court. Derogating the right to life demands a higher standardThere has been a long debate over the death penalty being violative of Article 21, as it curtails the accused’s freedom to live with dignity. As established in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), any restriction imposed on Article 21 per “procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable.The award of the death penalty for religious conversions is unjust, arbitrary, and disproportionate, as it does not align with the principle established in Maneka Gandhi. It is unfair to impose the death penalty in cases of religious conversions, as the term ‘fair’ refers to the absence of arbitrariness, and this decision of the state government is precisely that as it does not adhere to basic tenets of natural justice. .Supreme Court miffed at another frivolous petition alleging ‘fraudulent’ religious conversions.This measure lacks justification as the severity of the punishment does not align with the gravity of the offence; religious conversion is not a violent or irreparable act that warrants the death penalty as punishment, and there can be alternative punishments within the existing legal framework. The state governments’ action also lacks reasonableness, as there is no ‘rational nexus’ between the objective of the law and the means adopted by it; there can be lesser sanctions as available in existing legal frameworks.Departure from the “Rarest of rare” principleThe Supreme Court has constantly reiterated that the death penalty must be imposed only in “rarest of rare” cases, i.e., the cases that involve such extreme brutality that shocks societal conscience. This standard of “rarest of rare” was articulated in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), where the Supreme Court had observed that the death penalty should be imposed only in circumstances where no other punishment is adequate. Religious conversions, even though done by means of coercion, do not pass the test of heinousness as established in Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), where the Court held that the death penalty should be imposed in cases involving crimes which are so heinous that life imprisonment is not an adequate punishment. Unlike any brutal crime, religious conversions do not involve any physical harm or grave irreparable damage, for which the death penalty can be imposed.Also, the proposal for death penalty in religious conversion cases does not befit the requirement established in Macchi Singh, where the Court observed that before awarding death sentence judges must ensure a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. There is no scope for such as assessment in the Madhya Pradesh government’s proposal, as it treats all the offenders uniformly. There is little scope for judicial discretion in considering the mitigating circumstances and disables courts from evaluating the possibility of reforms or rehabilitation of the offender..The proposal to award the death penalty in cases of forceful religious conversions by the Madhya Pradesh government is a sharp departure from the constitutional safeguards and the established international norms..The Supreme Court’s own shifting position on death penaltyThe Supreme Court of India has recently shown sustained reluctance in awarding death penalty even in the most heinous of crimes, the most recent incident being the ruling of Ramesh A. Naika v. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka in February 2025, where the Court has commuted the death sentence of the accused convicted of murder of four people including his two minor children. The top Court, while considering the matter, took into consideration the mitigating factors of the case. The Supreme Court also took suo-moto cognizance to lay down guidelines for awarding capital punishment by courts in India, as judges are subjective while considering mitigating factors in awarding the death penalty. In a situation where the Supreme Court has shown sustained reluctance to the death penalty for even heinous crimes, this move by the Madhya Pradesh government marks a clear deviation from judicial standards.Breach of International Human Rights Conventions The proposal of the Madhya Pradesh government is violative of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (‘UDHR’) and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights ‘(ICCPR’), with the latter being binding on India, as it has been ratified in 1979. Article 18 of both these international documents guarantee freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, which includes the freedom to change one’s religion. Also, Article 6 of the ICCPR expressly limits the award of the death penalty only in the most serious crimes under the law in force at that time. This proposal to award the death penalty in cases of forceful religious conversion is a clear violation of international norms and treaty obligations under ICCPR..Conclusion The proposal to award the death penalty in cases of forceful religious conversions by the Madhya Pradesh government is a sharp departure from the constitutional safeguards and the established international norms. It is also a deviation from the principle of considering “rarest of rare” cases for awarding capital punishment in India, established and reaffirmed by various judicial precedents. This measure of the state government is violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens as there is a high risk of misuse of this provision even in cases of voluntary conversions due to family pressure, and leading to exploitation of innocent individuals who will be subjected to false litigation while exercising their fundamental right of freedom to propagate religion. This would ultimately lead to the award of death penalty under the provisions of the MPFRA, which is a clear breach of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 21 of the Constitution. The state government must reconsider its proposal, act within the constitutional framework while legislating anti-conversion laws, and ensure that no innocent person should be persecuted by State actions which are ‘bad in law’.

Madhya Pradesh’s death penalty proposal for forced conversions shuns the judiciary’s principled stand on both capital punishment and conversions

Related Stories