How does Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act 2026 compare to anti-conversion laws in other States?

The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on March 17 passed the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026.

With this, Maharashtra has become the latest State to join India’s expanding list of regimes with specific laws to tackle forced religious conversions.

The law combines stringent criminal penalties for forced religious conversions, advance‑notice requirements before religious conversions and suo motu policing powers. It also has provisions to address the legitimacy, succession rights and maintenance of children born out of marriages declared void on account of the unlawful religious conversion of a party to the marriage.

The new law puts Maharashtra within a pan‑India trend that began with Odisha’s 1967 statute and now increasingly focuses on inter-faith marriages.

Penalty for unlawful religious conversion

The 2026 Act criminalises religious conversion by “allurement, coercion, deceit, force, misrepresentation, threat, undue influence, fraud or marriage,” broadly following the vocabulary of similar recent laws in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan. 

Unlike several earlier statutes, it also allows the police to take suo motu cognisance of alleged illegal conversions, in addition to complaints by the converted person, their parents or specified relatives.

For unlawful conversions, the law prescribes imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of up to ₹1 lakh as punishment.

The penalty for violators rises to a ₹5 lakh fine along with a 7-year jail sentence if the victim of unlawful religious conversion is a woman, a minor, a person of unsound mind, or from a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, or if the offender is involved in mass religious conversion.

Repeat offenders can face up to 10 years’ imprisonment and fines up to ₹7 lakh.

Institutions found involved in unlawful conversions can have their registration cancelled and lose eligibility for State grants or aid.

On marriages conducted with sole intent of forced conversion

The new law says that any marriage solemnised with the sole purpose of unlawful religious conversion shall be declared as null and void by a court on a petition being presented by either party to the marriage against the other party.

A child born from such a union will follow the mother’s religion but retain succession rights from both parents, the law further says. Child custody, in such cases, would lie presumptively with the mother.

The law also has provides that children of such unions would be entitled to maintenance from their parents in line with Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Advance notice before religious conversion

Maharashtra has also adopted one of the strictest notice regimes. Before a person changes their religion or an institution intends to organise a conversion ceremony, notice has to be given 60 days in advance to a designated authority.

The law provides for the publication of this notice, so that the public may communicate objections, if any. If objections are made, the competent authority may conduct an inquiry through the police as to whether the proposed religious conversion is forced. Criminal proceedings may ensue, if the proposed conversion is suspected to be a forced one.

If the religious conversion takes place, a declaration about the same has to be made as well within 21 days before the competent authority, with details such as the name of the converted person, their age, residence, parental details, religion, etc. Without this declaration, the conversion will be deemed void.

India’s first anti-conversion statute was Odisha’s Freedom of Religion Act, 1967, which criminalised conversion by force, inducement or fraud with comparatively light penalties capped at short prison terms and modest fines. 

Madhya Pradesh followed in 1968 (since replaced in 2021), while Arunachal Pradesh (1978) and Jharkhand (2017) explicitly invoked the protection of “indigenous faiths” and local religious practices and began experimenting with post‑conversion declarations and prior‑permission requirements

A “post‑2018 wave” then ushered in far stricter laws in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh (2019), Gujarat (amended in 2021), Madhya Pradesh (2021), Haryana (2022), Karnataka (2022), Uttar Pradesh (2021, amended in 2024) and Rajasthan (2025), marked by broader definitions of what constitutes illegal religious conversions, higher penalties and tighter procedures. 

States such as Uttarakhand and Karnataka expanded the definition of “allurement” to cover free education and employment.

Himachal Pradesh shifted the burden of proof to show that a conversion is not forced onto the converted person and criminalised priests who fail to give prior notice.

Karnataka allows even colleagues to lodge complaints of forced conversions, while mandating compensation up to ₹5 lakh for victims.

Many of these laws now specifically target marriages that involve religious conversion, as is the case with Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. In fact, States like Gujarat also halt State grants to institutions accused of illegal religious conversions as soon as chargesheets are filed, without waiting for a conviction. 

Haryana additionally addresses digital or social-media-based conversions and grants legitimacy and inheritance rights to children born out of wedlock from unions that are found to involve illegal religious conversions.

Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan are among the stricter anti-conversion regimes. Uttar Pradesh prescribes 7–14 years of imprisonment and a ₹10 lakh fine for foreign or illegal‑funded conversions, with aggravated cases capable of attracting life terms.

Rajasthan provides 10–20‑year jail sentences and potential life imprisonment in the most serious cases, along with property confiscation and institutional fines up to ₹1 crore.

Maharashtra’s new law sits slightly below these upper tiers on paper, but is structurally stringent due to suo motu police powers, a strict notice regime and invalidation of marriages that are found to be premised on an illegal religious conversion. This places Maharashtra's law firmly within the newer, more punitive generation of anti‑conversion statutes.

Constitutionally, the framework still rests on the Supreme Court’s 1977 ruling in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that the right to “propagate” religion under Article 25 of the Constitution does not include a right to convert others and upheld early anti-conversion laws from Odisha and Madhya Pradesh. 

However, post‑2017 provisions on prior notice, public declaration and marriage‑specific presumptions have triggered fresh scrutiny after the right to privacy was recognised in the KS Puttaswamy case.

Few instances of such judicial scrutiny include the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision to strike down a 30‑day notice requirement in 2012, the Gujarat High Court staying provisions that effectively criminalised inter-faith marriages in 2021 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court calling a 60‑day prior‑declaration mandate ex facie unconstitutional.

In 2025, the Supreme Court clubbed multiple challenges to this newer cohort of anti‑conversion laws.

The petitions are yet to be heard and Maharashtra’s law is expected to be tested against the same privacy and autonomy standards.

[Read a comparison of all anti-conversion laws]