A petition filed in the Bombay High Court has challenged the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion (MFR) Act, 2026, contending that the state’s new anti-conversion law violates the fundamental rights of citizens, including freedom of religion, privacy, dignity and personal autonomy.
Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan filed the petition through advocate Abdul Mateen Shaikh. It specifically challenges Sections 2(a), 3, 6, 7 and 9 of the Act, alleging that they infringe the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), 19(1)(c) (freedom to form unions), 21 (right to life), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (right to manage religious affairs) and 29 (protection of minorities’ rights) of the Constitution.
The petitioner has argued that while the state may legitimately regulate conversions brought about by force, fraud or coercion, the law travels beyond this permissible objective. “The impugned provisions are vague, overboard and disproportionate, and consequently place unwarranted restrictions upon freedom of conscience, religious choice, speech, association, privacy and personal autonomy,” the plea states.
The petition takes particular objection to Section 2(a), which defines “allurement” using broad and subjective expressions such as “better lifestyle” and “divine healing”. According to the plea, the wide sweep of this provision could bring legitimate religious discourse, propagation, charitable activities and educational assistance within the ambit of penal consequences, producing a chilling effect on constitutionally protected freedoms.
The petitioner has further contended that certain provisions of the Act could expose voluntary religious activity and conversion to criminal liability even where no actual force, fraud or coercion exists. Such an interpretation, the plea argues, impermissibly interferes with the freedom of conscience under Article 25, which protects the right of a competent individual to make an informed and voluntary choice in matters of faith and belief.
On Sections 6 and 7, which require prior disclosure of an intended conversion and permit scrutiny and inquiry by state authorities, the plea states that these provisions “intrude upon an individual’s privacy, dignity and decisional autonomy”. It adds that a blanket mechanism of prior notice and state inquiry imposes a disproportionate restriction when genuinely vitiated conversions can be addressed through less restrictive measures.
The petition also attacks Section 9, which prescribes criminal penalties, arguing that attaching criminal liability to conduct governed by loosely worded provisions creates the risk of arbitrary enforcement and discourages the exercise of fundamental freedoms.
According to the petitioner, the cumulative effect of the challenged provisions is to confer excessive and unguided discretion on authorities, restrict religious speech and association, interfere with privacy and autonomy, and disproportionately affect freedom of conscience and the rights of religious denominations and minorities.
The plea seeks a declaration that Sections 2(a), 3, 6, 7 and 9 are unconstitutional and void to the extent that they violate fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. In the alternative, it urges the court to read down the provisions so that they apply only to conversions involving actual force, fraud, coercion or other means that demonstrably vitiate free and informed consent.
The Maharashtra Legislature passed the law earlier this year. It received the President’s assent and the state government notified it on 31 July. The Maharashtra Home Department subsequently notified that the Act would come into force on 28 August.
Under the Act, religious conversion becomes a criminal offence if it is allegedly secured through coercion, fraud, force, threats, misrepresentation, inducement or undue influence. Conversions connected to marriage or a promise of marriage also fall within its scope. The person who facilitates a conversion carries the burden of proving that it was voluntary, and the Act provides for harsher punishment where the person converted is a minor, a woman, a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, or a person of unsound mind.
Earlier, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi had criticised the proposed legislation, describing it as “worse than the worst of such laws”, including those enacted in Uttar Pradesh. Similar anti-conversion laws exist in states including Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Rajasthan.
The petition is likely to be listed before the High Court in the coming week.
