A writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, was withdrawn today from the Bombay High Court [Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]
The withdrawal came after a Division Bench of Chief Justice Mahesh C Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna expressed its reluctance to entertain the challenge to the anti-coversion law in the absence of specific factual pleadings that pointed to a concrete cause of action.
"Show that you were imparting your religion and because of State intervention you were not able to impart. You file a better petition so that we can have a better idea of what is the ground reality," the Bench said.
The Court, however, clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh plea.
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026 is an anti-conversion law aimed at prohibiting religious conversions through force, fraud, coercion, allurement, misrepresentation, undue influence or marriage.
Critics have argued that its broad provisions, 60-day prior-notice requirement and burden-shifting provisions could infringe privacy, freedom of conscience and personal autonomy, particularly in relation to voluntary conversions and interfaith relationships.
A 70-year-old Islamic teacher from Thane's Bhiwandi had filed a plea before the High Court challenging this law. Senior Advocate Yusuf Muchhala appeared on his behalf. During hearings, Senior Advocate Muchhala challenged the definition of "allurement" under Section 2(a) of the Act. He also attacked rigorous pre-conversion procedures prescribed under Sections 6 and 7.
He argued that the law restricts religious propagation protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. Under Section 6, citizens must give 60 days' prior notice before converting to another religion.
Muchhala pointed out that authorities then publish these notices publicly to invite objections.
He emphasized that subjecting individual faith to a police inquiry violates the fundamental right to privacy.
The Bench, however, questioned how the petitioner was directly aggrieved. The Court noted that the petition lacked foundational facts and raised only an academic challenge.
The Court also commented on the legislative intent behind regulating religious conversions and drew a clear line between the voluntary adoption of a faith and conversion solely as a prerequisite for matrimony:
"The State is only concerned with coercion or religious conversion by force. Anyone has the freedom to change their religion. But just for the purpose of marriage, conversion cannot be permitted," the Chief Justice remarked.
Muchhala eventually requested the Court for permission to amend the petition to introduce concrete facts. The Court, however, declined to grant such permission, following which the plea was withdrawn. The Court clarified that the petitioner is free to file a fresh petition in the matter.
Muchhala was briefed by advocate Mateen Shaikh.