A petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion (MFR) Act 2026, arguing that the law, which is claimed to be an 'anti-conversion' legislation, violates fundamental rights of citizens. 

The petition has been filed by one Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan through advocate Abdul Mateen Shaikh challenging the validity of the MFR Act.

He has contended that various provisions of the law, particularly Sections 2(a), 3, 6, 7 and 9, infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(a) (free speech & expression), 19(1)(c) (freedom to form unions), 21 (right to life), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (right to manage religious affairs) and 29 (protection of minorities' rights) of the Constitution of India.

"While the State may legitimately enact measures to prevent conversion brought about by force, fraud, coercion or other means that vitiate free and informed consent, the Impugned Act travels beyond this 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 states. 

The petition points out that section 2(a) of the MFR Act defines the expression "allurement", which employs broad and subjective expressions, including "better lifestyle" and "divine healing".

"The wide sweep of the provision is capable of bringing legitimate religious discourse, propagation, charitable activities and educational assistance within the ambit of penal consequences, thereby producing a chilling effect upon the freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), 25 and 26 of the Constitution," the plea states. 

The plea claims that certain provisions of the Act are capable of exposing voluntary religious activity and conversion to criminal liability even where there is no actual force, fraud or coercion, adding that such an interpretation impermissibly interferes with the freedom of conscience guaranteed under Article 25, which protects the right of a competent individual to make an informed and voluntary choice regarding matters of faith and belief.

"Sections 6 and 7, by requiring prior disclosure of an intended conversion and subjecting such personal choice to scrutiny and inquiry by State authorities, intrude upon an individual's privacy, dignity and decisional autonomy. The choice to retain, change or adopt a faith is intrinsically connected with an individual's conscience and identity. A blanket mechanism of prior notice and State inquiry therefore imposes a disproportionate restriction, particularly when instances involving force, fraud or coercion can be addressed through less restrictive measures. Section 9, by prescribing serious penal consequences for contraventions arising from the impugned statutory framework, compounds the Constitutional infirmity. The imposition of criminal liability upon conduct regulated through vague and overbroad provisions creates the risk of arbitrary enforcement and exerts a chilling effect upon the exercise of fundamental freedoms," the plea states. 

The cumulative effect of the impugned provisions, according to the petitioner, is to confer excessive and unguided discretion upon the authorities, resulting in arbitrary application in violation of Article 14; to restrict religious speech and association protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c); to intrude upon privacy, dignity and decisional autonomy protected under Article 21; and to disproportionately interfere with freedom of conscience and the rights of religious denominations and minorities under Articles 25, 26 and 29.

With these contentions, the plea seeks a declaration that the MFR Act particularly, its sections 2(a), 3, 6, 7 and 9, are unconstitutional and void to the extent that they infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. In the alternative, the plea urges the court to read down the said provisions so as to confine their operation strictly to cases involving conversion by actual force, fraud, coercion or other means demonstrably vitiating free and informed consent.

The petition is likely to be listed before the High Court in the coming week. 

Case Title: Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan vs State of Maharashtra