The Supreme Court of India is examining the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws in multiple states, following a petition filed by a Christian organization. On Monday, February 2, 2026, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to the central government and 12 states, seeking their responses to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the National Council of Churches in India (NCCI). The NCCI is challenging the constitutional validity of the anti-conversion laws enacted by these states and is seeking a stay on the operation of these laws.
The states that have been issued notices include Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh. The court has directed the Centre and the concerned state governments to file their responses within four weeks. The bench has ordered that the fresh pleas be tagged with similar petitions already pending before the court and will be heard together by a three-judge bench.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing the NCCI, urged the court to stay the operation of the anti-conversion laws enacted by several states, arguing that these laws are being misused. Arora contended that the laws "incentivize vigilante groups to complain" about alleged conversions, leading to a rise in baseless complaints and harassment. She also pointed out that Odisha and Rajasthan had enacted separate anti-conversion laws that were not challenged in earlier petitions and that amendments to other statutes also remained unchallenged.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, said that the Centre's reply was ready and would be filed shortly. He also opposed the submissions, stating that the issues raised were already covered by a Constitution Bench judgment. Mehta referred to the Rev. Stainislaus v/s State of Madhya Pradesh case law of 1977, where a five-Judge Bench of the top court had decided the constitutionality of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968 and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967. The 1977 verdict held that the word 'propagate' in Article 25 of the Constitution did not give “the right to convert another person to one's own religion, but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets”.
Anti-conversion laws, also known as "Freedom of Religion" laws, are intended to prevent forced conversions through "force, fraud, or allurement". However, critics argue that these laws are often misused to target Christians and other religious minorities, leading to false accusations and attacks by extremist groups. These groups often raid church services, physically assault attendees, and have pastors arrested on fabricated charges of forced conversion.
Currently, anti-conversion laws are in force in eleven states: Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. These laws often require individuals seeking to convert to obtain permission from local authorities, and they impose penalties, including imprisonment and fines, for unlawful conversions. Some states also prohibit inter-religious marriages.
The petitions allege that the anti-conversion laws violate Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution, suppressing individual liberty and freedom of religion. The Supreme Court's decision to examine the validity of these laws highlights the ongoing debate surrounding religious freedom and the potential for misuse of anti-conversion legislation in India.