Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society Moves Supreme Court Against Rajasthan Anti-Conversion Law

The Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, 2025, asserting that the statute violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 21, 25 and 300A of the Constitution.“the structure of the Rajasthan Act is only to create fear in the minds of people and dissuade people from conversions. Further, it is only a tool for harassment of the minority communities and create a chilling effect”, the plea states.A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta today issued notice returnable within four weeks in the writ petition filed though advocate Amit Pai.The petition submits that the new law imposes an absolute prohibition on religious conversion through Section 3, which bars conversion by “misrepresentation, misinformation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, online solicitation, marriage or pretext of marriage or by any other fraudulent means”. The petition argues that because the definitions of these expressions are vague and overbroad blurring the distinguishing features of a wilful conversion and a forceful conversion, the prohibitions in Section 3 effectively criminalise legitimate religious propagation protected by Article 25.The plea argues that the provisions create a chilling effect on the exercise of religious freedom allowing ordinary religious activity, persuasion or discussion to be treated as unlawful. The petition challenges the definition of “conversion”, which excludes a return to “ancestral religion”, saying this creates an impermissible classification based on the religion of one's forefathers. It also challenges the definitions of “allurement”, “force”, “coercion”, “misinformation” and “online solicitation”, stating that each term has been expanded in a way that criminalises legitimate religious and social activity.The petition challenges the meaning of “convincing for conversion”, defined as making a person agree to adopt another religion. It says that persuasion cannot be equated with force and that this restriction directly interferes with the right to propagate religion under Article 25 and the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a). “professing or propagating a religion are within the meaning of the fundamental right of “freedom of speech and expression” protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and cannot be restricted by the State unless such propagation or professing of a religion falls foul of the parameters specified in Article 19(2). Thus, any propagation or profession of a religion – which may result in conversion of another person's religion – cannot be restricted unless it is within the meaning of “in the interest of sovereignty, integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”.”, the plea states.The petitioner also challenges the provision treating inter-faith marriage as conversion through a deeming fiction in the Explanation to Section 3(1).The plea also challenges the penal framework under Section 5, which prescribes mandatory minimum sentences ranging from seven years to life imprisonment, and fines from five lakh to twenty-five lakh rupees. The petition states that 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. The petition argues that this creates an unreasonable classification and violates Article 14.It submits that the statute prescribes penalties comparable to those for serious offences under the NDPS Act, POCSO Act or offences of rape and murder, despite lacking any comparable justification.The petition challenges Sections 8 and 9, which require persons intending to convert and religious priests conducting conversion ceremonies to give prior declarations to the District Magistrate. The petition contends that the inquiry powers given to the District Magistrate, including entertaining objections from any person or organisation, violate privacy and create avenues for harassment. “It is submitted that apart from being a direct affront to the right to privacy and the right to choose one's religion and faith that has been guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, this provision becomes a tool of harassment of those who seek to convert willfully”, the plea states.The petition further contends that penal consequences for failure to submit declarations, ranging from seven to fourteen years, are excessive and unconstitutional. The petition also challenges Section 14, which places a reverse burden on the accused to prove that a conversion did not occur by prohibited means, stating that this violates the guarantee of fair procedure under Article 21.The petition further assails provisions allowing confiscation and...

Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society Moves Supreme Court Against Rajasthan Anti-Conversion Law

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags