AA petition has been filed before the principal bench of the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026. [Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

The petition has been filed by 70-year-old Islamic scholar Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan.

According to the plea, the newly enacted law infringes fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

As per the plea, while prohibiting forced or fraudulent marriages is valid, such power cannot extend to state surveillance of consensual inter-faith relationships or voluntary religious conversions.

“The choice of a life partner and the decision concerning one's faith constitute facets of personal autonomy, dignity, privacy and decisional freedom protected under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution,” the plea reads. 

Section 9(2) prescribes enhanced punishment for converting women. The plea terms this gender-discriminatory. 

The plea has also assailed Section 2(a) for defining "allurement" in vague, over broad terms.

Phrases like "better lifestyle" and "divine healing" used in the provision would bar legitimate religious discourse and charity.

As per the petition,

“The threat of criminal proceedings, arrest, non-bailable prosecution, mandatory disclosure of personal information and public scrutiny under the impugned Act is capable of deterring individuals, religious organisations and institutions from undertaking legitimate religious teaching, preaching, charitable, humanitarian and related activities.”

The plea has also challenged the mandatory 60-day notice before converting from one religion to another.

The petition argues that this exposes personal faith choices to public scrutiny and state inquiry, violating privacy.

“Where a person voluntarily chooses to change his or her religion, the constitutional inquiry must be confined to whether such decision was made freely, voluntarily and with full and informed consent; the State cannot legitimately investigate the individual’s beliefs, motivations or reasons for such choice merely because the person may have been exposed to religious instruction, persuasion or lawful charitable and humanitarian activities,” the petition states. 

Further, Section 13 of the law places the burden of proof on the accused. The plea asserts that this undermines procedural fairness and the presumption of innocence.

In light of the above, the law should be declared unconstitutional or its provisions should be read down strictly to cases of actual force, fraud, or coercion.

The petition was filed through advocate Mateen Shaikh.

On August 21, the Nagpur Bench had dismissed a similar petition over vague pleadings. That petition had challenged the Act after its July 30 notification. The bench imposed costs but granted liberty to file a fresh petition after thorough research.

[Read Nagpur Bench Order]