The Supreme Court of India is examining the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025, and has requested the state government to present its position on the law's constitutional validity. This development follows petitions challenging the law, which came into effect in September 2025, alleging it infringes upon fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The law aims to regulate religious conversions, penalizing conversions the state deems "unlawful". Opponents argue that it violates constitutional protections, including the rights to equality, life, liberty, and property. The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, is hearing the challenges.
Several concerns have been raised regarding specific provisions of the Act. Sections 5(6), 10(3), 12, and 13, which allow executive authorities to confiscate or demolish properties allegedly linked to unlawful conversions before a court ruling, are under scrutiny. Petitioners argue these provisions enable collective punishment and bypass judicial oversight, undermining the rule of law.
The Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society has also approached the Supreme Court, asserting that the law imposes vague and disproportionate restrictions on fundamental rights. Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Society, emphasized the issue of "legislative competence" and argued that the statute exceeds constitutional limits. The law excludes reconversion to "ancestral religion" from the definition of conversion, which the petition says creates an arbitrary classification based on lineage and restricts a person's right to choose any faith. The petition challenges the inclusion of "misinformation," defined as "inaccurate information," as a punishable means of conversion. Criminalising inaccuracy, it says, is arbitrary and falls far outside any legitimate restriction.
The penalties prescribed by the Act are also a point of contention. Fines for "mass conversion," defined as converting more than two people, can reach the equivalent of nearly $24,000, with imprisonment ranging from 20 years to life. The petition notes that the penalties mirror those for grave offenses such as narcotics trafficking, rape and murder, and are grossly disproportionate to the acts covered by the law. The petition argues that the punishments for "mass conversion", defined as involving "two or more persons", and enhanced sentences when the person converted is a woman, a person with disability, or belongs to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, are arbitrary and disproportionate, creating an unreasonable classification and violating Article 14. The Act attempts to give legal backing to actions that the Supreme Court previously ruled unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court has tagged the current petition with other pending matters involving similar challenges to anti-conversion laws from other states, including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka. The court has requested responses from these states before deciding whether to stay enforcement of the laws.
Supporters of the Rajasthan law claim it is necessary to prevent coercion and fraud in religious conversions. However, opponents argue it criminalizes personal choice and grants excessive powers to the executive branch. The Supreme Court has given the Rajasthan government four weeks to respond to the petition. The court will hear all sides before examining the issues raised.
