Religious freedom is a cornerstone of any democratic society. In India, a country of immense religious and cultural diversity, the right to freely practice, profess, and propagate religion is enshrined in the Constitution. However, this fundamental right often comes into tension with allegations of forced conversions instances where individuals are coerced, deceived, or manipulated into changing their religion. Forced religious conversion, therefore, lies at the intersection of law, faith, human rights, and politics, and has become one of the most controversial and sensitive issues in India’s socio-legal landscape.
Understanding Forced Conversion
Forced conversion refers to the act of compelling a person to renounce one’s religion and adopt another, typically through coercion, undue influence, fraud, or threat. It is distinct from voluntary conversion, where individuals adopt a different faith out of personal conviction. While the right to convert voluntarily is protected by Article 25 of the Constitution, forced conversion is widely condemned as a violation of individual liberty and dignity.
Forced conversions can take various forms: threats of violence, economic inducements, fraudulent misrepresentation of religious beliefs, or emotional manipulation. In some cases, conversions occur under the guise of social service, marriage, or educational influence. Each of these instances raises complex questions whether the conversion was truly voluntary, whether the individual was in a vulnerable state, and whether third parties should intervene.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees all citizens the “freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.” However, this right is not absolute. The state can impose restrictions in the interests of public order, morality, and health, and to regulate or restrict any economic, financial, or political activities associated with religious practice.
Importantly, the term “propagate” has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) to mean the right to spread or disseminate one’s religious beliefs, but not to convert another person forcibly. In this landmark case, the court upheld anti-conversion laws enacted by states like Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, ruling that the right to propagate one’s religion does not include the right to convert another by force, fraud, or inducement.
As of 2025, several Indian states have passed legislation to regulate religious conversions:
- Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021
- Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021
- Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2019
- Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2021
- Odisha Freedom of Religion Act, 1967
- Chhattisgarh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968
These laws generally prohibit conversions by force, fraud, or allurement, and impose criminal penalties on individuals or institutions found guilty. They also require prior notice to district authorities before a conversion ceremony and impose a burden of proof on the person who facilitated the conversion.
However, these laws are not uniform across the country and have been criticized for their vagueness, potential misuse, and for infringing upon the right to privacy and religious liberty.
Social and Political Dimensions
Forced conversion is not just a legal issue; it is deeply entangled with politics and identity. Accusations of mass conversions—whether to Christianity or Islam—are often accompanied by public outrage, media attention, and political mobilization. Religious groups have accused missionary organizations and foreign-funded NGOs of converting marginalized sections of society, particularly Dalits and Adivasis, through inducement or socio-economic incentives.
On the other hand, many Christian and Muslim organizations have defended their activities as voluntary outreach and relief efforts. They argue that conversions often stem from disenchantment with caste discrimination and social exclusion within Hinduism. For example, B.R. Ambedkar’s historic conversion to Buddhism in 1956, along with thousands of his followers, was a form of protest against caste-based oppression rather than religious coercion.
Another controversial trend is the emergence of so-called “Love Jihad” allegations, where interfaith marriages, particularly between Muslim men and Hindu women, are portrayed as a ploy for religious conversion. In response, some states have enacted laws requiring couples in interfaith marriages to declare their intent to convert before marriage. Critics argue that these laws curtail the autonomy of consenting adults and infringe upon their right to privacy and freedom of choice.
Human Rights and International Perspective
Internationally, the right to convert is considered a part of religious freedom under various human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 18) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). However, these rights also forbid coercive conversions.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief has emphasized that missionary activity, religious proselytism, and conversion are legitimate forms of religious expression but must be carried out in a non-coercive, respectful manner. India, being a signatory to the ICCPR, has an obligation to protect both the freedom of religion and the dignity of individuals against coercion.
At the same time, any attempt by the state to over-regulate religious conversions or target specific communities under the pretext of curbing forced conversion could lead to discrimination and violate international norms.
Challenges in Prosecution and Enforcement
Despite numerous laws, very few cases of forced conversion result in conviction. Most cases lack concrete evidence of coercion. Often, family members or community groups lodge complaints after an individual converts or marries outside their religion, sometimes against their wishes. Courts are then required to assess the voluntariness of a deeply personal decision.
Further, laws requiring individuals to report their conversions to authorities raise questions about surveillance and state intrusion. In 2022, the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India reaffirmed the fundamental right to privacy, which includes the autonomy of individuals in matters of belief and faith. Laws that interfere with personal decisions about religion must be narrowly tailored and proportionate.
There is also a challenge of politicization and selective enforcement. In many reported cases, laws against conversion are used disproportionately against minority groups, especially Christians and Muslims, leading to fear and hesitation among genuine converts.
The Way Forward
The issue of forced conversion cannot be resolved merely through punitive laws. It requires a balanced approach that respects individual freedom while preventing exploitation. Here are some possible ways forward:
- Clarity in Law: The definition of “force,” “fraud,” and “inducement” must be precise and limited to prevent misuse. Vague language allows arbitrary arrests and harassment.
- Voluntary Declarations: Instead of mandatory state approval, a system of post-conversion voluntary declaration, perhaps before a magistrate, can help ensure that conversions are genuine without violating privacy.
- Education and Awareness: Promoting religious tolerance, interfaith dialogue, and understanding can reduce the mistrust around conversions.
- Judicial Oversight: Courts should remain vigilant to ensure that anti-conversion laws are not weaponized to suppress dissent or target minorities.
- Protecting Marginalized Communities: Social upliftment, rather than criminalization, is key. When people convert due to economic deprivation or caste discrimination, the state must address root causes rather than blame religious groups.
Conclusion
Forced conversion is a serious concern, but the solution must be rooted in constitutional values, not communal rhetoric. India’s strength lies in its pluralism and secular fabric. Protecting individuals from coercion should not come at the cost of suppressing genuine faith transitions. Striking the right balance between individual liberty and social harmony is not just a legal necessity it is a moral imperative for a democratic society.
CONTRIBUTED BY : ANSHU (INTERN)