THE REPORTED DECISION of some churches in Maharashtra to obtain written declarations from worshippers affirming that they attended prayer meetings voluntarily reflects more than legal caution. It exposes a larger constitutional tension on whether the State can prevent coercive or fraudulent conversion without making every religious choice appear suspect.
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, which came into force on August 28, 2026, prohibits conversion through force, coercion, deceit, misrepresentation, threats, undue influence, inducement and fraudulent means. It also establishes procedures for proposed conversions, including prior notice and post-conversion declarations. The State plainly has a legitimate interest in protecting people from fraud, coercion and exploitation. The Supreme Court recognised this principle in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), holding that Article 25 does not create a fundamental right to convert another person through force or fraud.
That principle, however, does not resolve every constitutional question. The crucial distinction is between the unlawful method by which a conversion may be secured and the individual’s voluntary decision to change faith pursued by them. Article 25 begins with the “freedom of conscience”. Those words place the individual, not the State or a religious institution, at the centre of the constitutional guarantee.
What the law regulates
The Act adopts a broad definition of “unlawful conversion”. It covers not only force and deception but also allurement, undue influence, fraudulent means and “brainwashing through the medium of education or by any other such means”. “Allurement” includes gifts, material benefits, employment, free education in institutions run by religious bodies, promises of marriage, a “better lifestyle”, divine healing, and portraying or glorifying one religion over another.
