A bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna permitted the petitioner to withdraw the present petition and file a fresh petition, specifically pointing out the repercussions of the law's enforcement and the two prosecutions registered in Pune under the Act, which had not been brought to the Court's notice.

The petitioner had challenged various provisions of the Act, contending that they infringe fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), 21, 25, 26 and 29 of the Constitution.

The plea claimed that certain provisions of the Act could expose voluntary religious activities and conversions to criminal liability even in the absence of force, fraud or coercion. It argued that such an interpretation would impermissibly interfere with the freedom of conscience guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution, which protects an individual's right to make an informed and voluntary choice regarding matters of faith and belief.

The petitioner contended that while the State could legitimately enact measures to prevent conversions brought about by force, fraud or coercion, the impugned Act went beyond that permissible objective.

“The impugned provisions are vague, overboard and disproportionate, and consequently place unwarranted restrictions upon freedom of conscience, religious choice, speech, association, privacy and personal autonomy,” the plea stated.

The petition specifically challenged Sections 2(a), 3, 6, 7 and 9 of the Act, alleging that they violate constitutional guarantees relating to equality, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association, life and personal liberty, freedom of religion, management of religious affairs and the protection of minority interests.