State Legislative Brief

RAJASTHAN

The Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025

Key Features

• The Bill prohibits religious conversions by force, coercion, misrepresentation, undue influence, allurement, marriage, or any fraudulent means.
• The person undergoing conversion and the convertor must make declarations before DM.  DM will conduct inquiry and invite objections.
• Persons who can lodge an FIR against a forced conversion include the victim, parents, brother, sister, or anyone related by blood, marriage, or by adoption.

Key Issues and Analysis

• Details of conversion and personal details of the person converting will be put on public notice.  This may violate a person’s right to privacy.
• Re-conversion to a person’s previous religion will not be considered as conversion.  This may violate the right to equality.
• Several procedures related to the conversion process lack clarity.  These include the: (i) inquiry process and time period, (ii) action to be taken by DM, and (iii) appeal mechanism.

PART A: HIGHLIGHTS OF THE BILL

As of 2025, 11 states have passed laws to regulate religious conversion on the ground of public order (see Table 2 in the Annexure for details).  Article 25 of the Constitution provides for the fundamental right to freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.  The Supreme Court (1977) ruled that this fundamental right does not include the right to convert another person to one’s own religion, but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets.[1]

The Rajasthan Legislative Assembly had passed laws to regulate religious conversion in 2006 and 2008, however, these did not receive assent.[2]  The Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025 was introduced in the Assembly in February 2025.[3]

Prohibition of unlawful conversion of religion:  The Bill prohibits conversion of an individual to another religion through: (i) misrepresentation, (ii) force, (iii) undue influence, (iv) coercion, (v) allurement, (vi) by any fraudulent means, or (vii) by marriage.  It also prohibits an individual from abetting, convincing, or conspiring such conversions.  Marriages for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion will be declared illegal and void.  Contravention of these provisions will be punishable with imprisonment and a fine (Table 1).  Punishment will double in case of repeated contravention.  Re-converting to immediate previous religion is exempted.

Table 1: Penalties for unlawful conversion Unlawful conversion of Imprisonment Minimum fine (in rupees) An individual one to five years 15,000 A woman, minor, or a person belonging to the SC or ST community two to ten years 25,000 Two or more individuals (mass conversion) three to ten years 50,000

 

• Procedure for wilful conversion:  An individual who wishes to convert his religion must make an advance declaration before the District Magistrate (DM).  The religious converter must also give an advance notice to the DM.  On receiving these notices, the DM will initiate an inquiry conducted by the police.  The inquiry will assess real intention, purpose, and cause of the proposed conversion.

Post conversion, the converted person must send another declaration to the DM.  This declaration will be displayed on the notice board along with details about the converted person such as father’s name, date of birth, address, place of residence, and the religions between which he has converted.  If the DM receives any objections, he will record the details of the objector and the nature of objection.  The converted person must appear before the DM to establish his identity and confirm the contents of the declaration.

Conversions which do not follow any of the above requirements will be deemed illegal and void.  Not providing a pre-conversion declaration will be punishable with imprisonment between six months and three years, and a minimum fine of Rs 10,000.  A religious convertor not providing the required notice will be punishable with imprisonment between one and five years, and a minimum fine of Rs 25,000.

• Reporting an unlawful conversion:  An FIR may be filed against an unlawful conversion by an aggrieved person, and his specified relatives.  These include parents, brother or sister, or any other person related by blood, marriage, or adoption.
• Burden of proof:  The burden of proof to show that a conversion is not unlawful, will lie on the person who has caused the conversion and other persons who facilitated it.
• Compensation to victim:  The Court may require the offender to pay a compensation of up to five lakh rupees to the victim of unlawful conversion.

PART B: KEY ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

In the 1960s, Odisha and Madhya Pradesh passed laws to prohibit religious conversion through force, fraud or inducement.[4]^,[5]  These laws were challenged before the Courts on two grounds: (i) the state legislature did not have legislative competence as the law regulates religion, which is a subject under the Union List, and (ii) they violated the fundamental right to propagate religion.  The Supreme Court (1977) upheld these laws stating that they regulate public order by prohibiting forced conversions.1  Public order is a subject under the State List.  These laws do not regulate religion itself.1  The Court also stated that the right to convert is not part of the right to propagate religion.1  It only comprises the freedom to spread one’s religion by explaining its principles.1 

The Bill regulates religious conversions, and bans forced religious conversions.  Re-conversion of an individual to his immediate previous religion will not be considered as conversion under the Bill.  This raises a question about the right to equality before the law.

The Supreme Court (1950) held that while Article 14 of the Constitution requires equal treatment for all persons, it allows differential treatment for unequal classes of persons.[6]  Such treatment is allowed when the following three conditions are met: (i) the classes are clearly distinguishable from each other, (ii) there is a legitimate objective, and (iii) such classification meets the objective.  Both the instances of conversion and re-conversion involve change in religion of an individual.  However, the Bill only applies to cases of conversion, and not to cases of re-conversion.  While conversion may be due to force or allurement, there is a possibility that re-conversion may also be due to force.  The question is whether the differential treatment of conversion and re-conversion to the immediate previous religion meets the standards of Article 14.

The Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2006 had a similar provision on re-conversion.[7]  It exempted the conversion of a person back to his original religion.7  The High Court declared this provision to be irrational and violative of Article 14.[8]  It struck down this provision.8 

Under the Bill, a person undergoing conversion must send a declaration to the DM post conversion.  This declaration will be displayed on the notice board of the DM’s office along with details such as father’s name, current residential address, and date of birth.  Requiring a public display of religious conversions along with such personal details of the individual may violate his right to privacy.

The Supreme Court (2017) has held that individuals have a right to privacy.[9]  Personal choices which govern their way of life are intrinsic to privacy, and this may include the choice and practice of faith.9  The Court had also held that an individual’s right to freedom of religion includes the ability to choose a faith and the freedom to not declare such choices publically.9  Note that the Special Marriage Act, 1954 also requires public notice of details of the couple who intend to marry.[10]  However, the Allahabad High Court (2020) ruled that since marriage is a personal affair, the requirement of public notice is voluntary and not mandatory.[11] 

An individual’s right to privacy may be restricted by law if the following conditions are met: (i) there is a legitimate public purpose, (ii) the law has a rational nexus with such purpose, and (iii) the infringement of privacy is necessary and proportionate to the purpose.9  The Bill intends to achieve public order by prohibiting forced conversions, which meets the first condition.  However, mandating public notice of all conversions may lead to more public order issues as revealing such conversions could lead to communal clashes.  The Himachal Pradesh High Court (2011) had made similar observations when examining the public notice requirements in the Himachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2006.8  The Court had noted that the remedy of public notice proposed by the state may be more harmful than the problem of threat to public order.8  There may be instances when the converter is subjected to physical and psychological torture by affected parties.  The 2006 Act was replaced in 2019 and the new law does not mandate public notice for religious conversions.[12]

Laws in other states except Karnataka, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, do not require public display of conversions.  They only provide for individuals to send an advance notice to the DM, after which the DM conducts an inquiry into the cause, intent, and purpose of the conversion.  The Bill already has a similar mechanism in place. 

The Bill provides details of the conversion process including steps to be undertaken pre and post conversion.  However, several details seem to be missing, which may lead to lack of clarity on the conversion procedure.  We discuss some of these below.

No clarity on procedure and time frame within which inquiry must be completed

The Bill requires the DM to conduct an inquiry after he receives the pre-conversion declarations from the converting person and the religion convertor.  This inquiry is conducted with the support of police to confirm the real intention of the conversion.  However, the procedure of the inquiry is unclear.  The Bill also does not specify the number of days within which such inquiry must be completed.

Other laws like the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 provide such details.[13]  The 2013 Act requires setting up of an internal committee to conduct inquiries against complaints of sexual harassment.13  The committee conducts the inquiry by calling for witnesses and relevant documents.13  The inquiry must be completed within 90 days from the day of complaint.13

Lack of clarity on steps to be taken by the DM after the inquiry is conducted

The Bill requires the DM to conduct an inquiry before the conversion to understand the real intention of the conversion.  However, it does not clarify the steps to be undertaken by the DM after such inquiry. 

Under the Haryana Freedom of Religion Act, 2022, the DM conducts an inquiry if he receives any objection on the public notice displayed before the conversion.[14]  If the DM concludes that the conversion was carried out with force, misrepresentation, fraud, coercion, or allurement, he may disallow the conversion after giving reasons in writing.14  During the inquiry, if the DM is satisfied that the conversion is wilful and not forced, he will issue a certificate.14  Either of these orders must be passed within a specified period.

Lack of clarity on the impact of objections to conversion and when the conversion becomes final

Post conversion, the DM must display a copy of the declaration of the conversion on the notice board.  If the DM receives any objection on the public notice, he must record the nature and particulars of objection.  However, the Bill does not clarify when the conversion becomes final.  It also does not clarify the impact of receiving such objections on the conversion process.

The Karnataka Protection of Right to Religion Act, 2022 also requires the display of public notice both before and after conversion.[15]  Under the Karnataka Act, if the DM receives any objections post conversion, he must conduct an inquiry again to understand the purpose of conversion.15  After the inquiry, if the DM concludes that an offence has been committed under the Act, he may ask police authorities to initiate criminal action.15  If the DM is satisfied with the intent of conversion, he will issue the official notification and intimate the concerned authorities about the conversion.15

Lack of an appeal mechanism

According to the Bill, the DM is responsible for monitoring religious conversion in a district.  The DM receives declarations, conducts inquiry with the help of police, puts up public notice of the conversion, and records the objections received.  Failure on the part of the DM to put up public notice of the conversion could also render the conversion illegal and void.  However, the Bill does not provide for an appeal mechanism that individuals may follow if they are aggrieved with the functioning of the DM. 

Under the Haryana Prevention of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2022, the DM may declare a conversion legal or illegal, after conducting an inquiry14  If an individual is aggrieved with the DM’s decision, he may appeal to the Divisional Commissioner.14

Conversion can be declared illegal and void if the DM does not display notice

The Bill states that the religious conversion may be declared illegal and void under certain instances.  One such instance is where the DM fails to display a public notice about the conversion.  The Bill allows a person’s conversion to be held void for no fault of theirs.  The question is whether this is appropriate.

Involving multiple DMs may lead to operational confusion

The Bill requires the DM to conduct the pre-conversion and post-conversion procedures.  An individual intending to convert his religion must make a declaration before the conversion to the DM of his residing district.  The religious convertor must also give advance notice to the DM of the district where the conversion will occur.  After receiving both these declarations, the DM must conduct an inquiry with the help of the police.  In instances where conversions happen in a district other than the district where the converted individual resides, it will involve two DMs.  It is unclear which DM will be responsible for conducting the inquiry.

Lack of safeguards against burden of proof may violate Article 21

The Bill establishes the burden of proof on the person who has caused the religious conversion.  The accused must prove that the religious conversion was not influenced by force, misrepresentation, coercion, allurement, marriage, or any fraudulent means.  According to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the burden of providing proof lies on the prosecution.[16]  However, the Supreme Court has held that under certain circumstances, the burden of proof can be reversed and put on the accused.  These include when: (i) facts are within special knowledge of the accused, (ii) prosecution sets foundational facts about the crime, (iii) accused does not have to prove negative facts, and (iv) the burden of proving innocence does not cause distress to the accused.[17]^,[18],[19]  The Bill does not specify such safeguards while reversing the burden of proof.  Thus, it may be violating Article 21 of the Constitution, which has been interpreted to imply that all laws or procedures should be fair and reasonable.

Some other laws such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 also reverse the burden of proof but provide safeguards to the accused.[20]  In the 1985 Act, the prosecution must first prove the possession of narcotics substances by the accused, after which the burden of proof shifts to the accused. 

Different punishments for women and people from SC/ST communities may violate the right to equality

The Bill defines different punishments for the unlawful religious conversion of a minor, a woman, and individuals from SC/ST communities.  In the Bill, the term of imprisonment and the fine charged for conversion of these groups is nearly doubled.  While minors are legally dependent on their guardian and require higher protection, it may raise a question on what grounds such protection is provided to women and individuals from SC and ST communities.    

This provision of different punishments for women and people from SC and ST communities is similar to Freedom of Religion laws in all states, except Arunachal Pradesh (see Table 2 in the Annexure). 

Maximum fine that can be charged is undefined

The Bill specifies the minimum amount of fine for offences.  However, it does not specify any upper limit on the amount of fine.  This may raise a question about the maximum amount of fine that courts may impose.  The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 states that when an upper limit on a fine is not prescribed, the maximum amount an accused is liable to pay is unlimited but must not be excessive.[21]  The Delhi High Court (2016) stated that the amount of penalty must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.[22]  Absence of an upper limit on the fine in the Bill may lead to disproportionate penalties being imposed.

States such as Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, and Odisha specify the maximum fine in their religious conversion laws (see Table 2 in the Annexure).

Paying compensation in addition to the penalty may be unreasonable

The Bill states that the Court may ask the accused to pay a compensation up to five lakh rupees to the victim in addition to the penalty.  According to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, courts can charge additional compensation in the following cases: (i) covering the expenses incurred during the prosecution, (ii) loss due to injury, (iii) loss due to death, and (iv) loss of property due to theft, breach of trust, or cheating.[23]  In this case, the Bill does not clarify the loss forced religious conversion can cause.  It also does not mention the grounds on which such additional compensation may be charged. 

Similar provisions on paying additional compensation exists in religious conversion laws in Haryana, Karnataka, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh (see Table 2 in the Annexure).