Should states be able to restrict religious conversion through law?

So-called anti-conversion laws, more formally Freedom of Religion Acts, require individuals in several Indian states to notify or seek permission from a government authority before converting to another religion, and criminalise conversion achieved through force, fraud, or inducement. Supporters frame them as protecting genuine religious choice from coercion; critics argue the permission requirements themselves restrict the constitutional freedom to change one's religion.

As of the mid-2020s, around a dozen states, including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Karnataka, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Arunachal Pradesh, have some version of these laws, though specific provisions vary by state. Several recent versions, including Uttar Pradesh's, have stiffened penalties and added scrutiny of conversions linked to interfaith marriage.

The laws have faced repeated constitutional challenges. The Supreme Court has generally upheld the basic premise that states can act against forced or fraudulent conversion, while raising concerns about specific provisions, including the burden the laws place on the person converting to prove their conversion was voluntary, which critics say inverts the normal presumption of innocence.

• Supporters argue vulnerable individuals, particularly the poor or those targeted with inducements, deserve legal protection against coercive or fraudulent religious conversion.
• Requiring formal notification, supporters say, creates a documented record that can deter genuinely coercive conversion practices.
• Several state legislatures have passed and strengthened these laws with significant electoral mandates, which supporters cite as democratic backing for the policy.

• Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom to profess, practise, and propagate religion, which critics argue includes the freedom to change one's religion without state permission.
• Provisions that shift the burden of proof onto the person converting, requiring them to demonstrate their choice was not coerced, have been criticised as a presumption of guilt rather than a neutral safeguard.
• Critics, including religious minority organisations, argue the laws are disproportionately used to target interfaith relationships and minority religious outreach rather than genuine cases of coercion.

Most liberal democracies treat religious conversion as a private matter requiring no state notification at all, protected directly under freedom of religion or conscience provisions. A small number of countries go further than India in restricting conversion, including some where apostasy or proselytising carries criminal penalties. India's law sits in an intermediate position: conversion itself is not banned, but it is subject to a state notification or permission process that most Western democracies do not impose.

These laws have been passed predominantly by BJP-led state governments, often framed around concerns about coercive conversion and religious demographic change. Opposition parties and minority religious organisations, particularly Christian groups given missionary activity in some regions, have been the most consistent critics, arguing the laws function as a restriction on religious freedom and minority outreach rather than a neutral anti-coercion measure.

This question sits on the Authority axis (state regulation of a personal choice) and the Tradition axis (protecting existing religious and cultural composition versus individual religious freedom). Opposition to these laws reads as more libertarian on personal liberty; support reads as more comfortable with state oversight of religious life.