Chhattisgarh's anti-conversion law takes effect
Where does the right to propagate religion end and a ban on conversion begin?
Published 25 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
The Hindu reports that Chhattisgarh's new anti-conversion law has taken effect, and that some churches have put up notices telling non-Christians they enter at their own risk. The Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026 was passed by the Assembly by voice vote on 19 March, in the absence of the Congress, and received Governor Ramen Deka's assent in April. It replaces a 1968 law inherited from Madhya Pradesh and has five chapters and 31 sections.
The law bans conversion by force, fraud, allurement, undue influence, misrepresentation or marriage, including through digital platforms, and defines 'inducement' to include cash, jobs, free education or promises of a better life. Anyone wishing to convert must notify the District Magistrate or competent authority in advance; details are made public and objections can be filed within 30 days. Returning to one's 'ancestral religion' is not treated as conversion.
Penalties are among the harshest in India: 7 to 10 years and a minimum fine of ₹5 lakh; 10 to 20 years and at least ₹10 lakh if the person converted is a minor, a woman, of unsound mind or from the SC, ST or OBC communities; and 10 years to life with at least ₹25 lakh for 'mass conversion'. Each district will have a special court. Christian groups and rights advocates say the law intrudes into personal faith, and petitions against similar State laws are pending before the Supreme Court.
Prelims facts
- Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
- In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court held that the right to propagate does not include a right to convert another person.
- Odisha (1967) and Madhya Pradesh (1968) passed the earliest State anti-conversion laws.
Quick recall
- What does Article 25 guarantee?
- Freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
- What did Rev. Stainislaus v. State of MP (1977) hold?
- The right to propagate religion does not include a right to convert another person.
- Which were the earliest State anti-conversion laws?
- Odisha (1967) and Madhya Pradesh (1968).
- When did Chhattisgarh's Assembly pass its 2026 anti-conversion Bill?
- On 19 March 2026, by voice vote; it received the Governor's assent in April.
- What must a person wishing to convert do under the Chhattisgarh law?
- Notify the District Magistrate or competent authority in advance; details are published and objections can be filed within 30 days.
- What is the penalty for 'mass conversion' under the Chhattisgarh law?
- 10 years to life imprisonment and a minimum fine of ₹25 lakh.
- Is returning to one's 'ancestral religion' treated as conversion under the law?
- No.
- Which judgment recognised the right to choose one's faith as part of personal liberty?
- Shafin Jahan v. Asokan (the Hadiya case, 2018).
Prelims practice question
In which case did the Supreme Court hold that the right to propagate religion does not include the right to convert another person?
- Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala
- Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Shirur Mutt case
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
Show answer
Answer: (b) Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh. Rev. Stainislaus (1977) upheld the Odisha and MP anti-conversion laws on this reasoning.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Freedom of religion and the Indian model of secularism
Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution.
How to use thisShows the Indian state actively regulating religious practice within Article 25's limits, a useful illustration of how Indian secularism engages with religion.
- Article 25 guarantees the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
- Chhattisgarh's 2026 law requires anyone wishing to convert to notify the District Magistrate in advance, with details made public and objections allowed within 30 days.
- In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court held that the right to propagate does not include a right to convert another person.
- How to use this
Supplies a current test of how far Indian secularism tolerates individual choice of faith, with arguments on both sides.
- Supporters say anti-conversion laws protect vulnerable groups from coercion and inducement, a position upheld in principle in Rev. Stainislaus (1977).
- Critics argue prior notice and inquiry before conversion intrude on privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017) and the right to choose one's faith (Hadiya, 2018).
- After Chhattisgarh's law took effect, some churches put up notices telling non-Christians they enter at their own risk, which can be read as a chilling effect.
What are the challenges to our cultural practices in the name of secularism?
How to use thisGives a live case where protecting community practices and individual freedom of faith pull in opposite directions.
- The Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion law, 2026 defines 'inducement' to include cash, jobs, free education or promises of a better life.
- Penalties are among India's harshest: 7 to 10 years and at least ₹5 lakh, rising to 10 years to life and at least ₹25 lakh for 'mass conversion'.
- Christian groups and rights advocates say the law intrudes into personal faith; petitions against similar State laws are pending before the Supreme Court.
- How to use this
Can serve as a recent example of personal faith becoming a contested public and political issue, but do not label it communalism outright.
- The Chhattisgarh Assembly passed the Freedom of Religion Bill by voice vote on 19 March 2026, in the absence of the Congress.
- The law prescribes 10 to 20 years if the person converted is a woman, a minor or from SC, ST or OBC communities, and returning to one's 'ancestral religion' is not treated as conversion.
- Some churches have put up notices telling non-Christians they enter at their own risk, showing how the law has altered everyday religious life.
Mains practice question
Anti-conversion laws seek to prevent coercion but risk curbing freedom of conscience. Critically examine. (150 words)
Model answer
Article 25 protects freedom of conscience and the right to propagate religion. Several States have passed laws against conversion by force, fraud or allurement.
Case for the laws
- Protect vulnerable groups from coercion and inducement.
- Upheld in principle in Rev. Stainislaus (1977), which read propagation as spreading one's beliefs, not converting others.
Concerns
- Prior notice and inquiry before conversion intrude on privacy and autonomy (Puttaswamy, 2017) and on the right to choose one's faith (Hadiya, 2018).
- Vague terms like 'allurement' invite misuse and harassment of minorities.
- Reverse burden of proof on the accused.
- Social effect: notices like 'enter at own risk' show a chilling effect on ordinary religious life.
Way forward
Define coercion narrowly, drop prior-permission requirements, require complaints from the person converted, and keep judicial review strong.
Preventing coercion is legitimate; the law must not make a free choice of faith suspect.
The basics
Why this matters
Several States have laws regulating religious conversion. Chhattisgarh's 2026 law is among the strictest, with long prison terms and advance-notice rules. These laws sit at the meeting point of freedom of religion, privacy and protection of vulnerable people, a core GS2 theme.
What the Constitution says
Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health. The question is whether propagation includes persuading someone to convert.
- 1Freedom of conscienceInner freedom to believe
- 2ProfessDeclare one's faith openly
- 3PractisePerform religious acts
- 4PropagateSpread one's beliefs
- 5LimitsPublic order, morality, health
What the courts said
In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court upheld the Odisha and Madhya Pradesh laws, reading propagation as spreading one's beliefs, not converting others. Later rulings, including the Hadiya case and Puttaswamy on the Right to privacy, stress personal autonomy.
- Protect vulnerable people from coercion
- Propagation does not include converting others
- Public order concerns
- Advance notice intrudes on privacy
- Choice of faith is personal autonomy
- Vague terms invite misuse
How the Chhattisgarh law works
The law adds a notice process for voluntary conversion.
- 1ApplicationTo an officer not below Additional District Magistrate.
- 2PublicationDetails shown on a website and at tehsil, panchayat and police station.
- 3ObjectionsCan be filed within 30 days.
How we got here
State laws have existed for decades and have grown stricter.
- 1967Odisha law
- 1968Madhya Pradesh law
- 1977Rev. Stainislaus upholds them
- 2017Puttaswamy recognises privacy
- 2018Hadiya case on choice of faith
- 2026Chhattisgarh's new law
What is unsettled
Petitions against several State laws are pending before the Supreme Court. The key questions are whether prior-notice rules are constitutional after Puttaswamy, and how to define inducement narrowly enough to prevent misuse.
You now know
- Article 25 protects the right to propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
- Rev. Stainislaus (1977) held that propagation does not include converting others.
- Chhattisgarh's 2026 law requires advance notice and prescribes up to life imprisonment for mass conversion.
- Privacy and autonomy rulings (Puttaswamy, Hadiya) are central to challenges against such laws.
Go deeper
In one line: Chhattisgarh's new law bans conversion by force, fraud or inducement and requires advance notice for voluntary conversion, sharpening the clash between preventing coercion and protecting conscience.
Why it matters for UPSC
GS2 asks about fundamental rights and their limits. Anti-conversion laws are a live test of Article 25, privacy and the reach of State power into personal belief.
The core idea
The State's argument: vulnerable people need protection from pressure and inducement. The critics' argument: requiring a person to announce a change of faith to the district administration, with public objections allowed, turns a private choice into a public inquiry. The law rests on Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which read propagation narrowly, but later judgments on privacy and personal autonomy, such as Puttaswamy and Hadiya case, pull the other way.
Numbers and dates to remember
- 19 March 2026: Bill passed; April 2026: Governor's assent.
- 7 to 10 years and ₹5 lakh: basic penalty.
- 10 years to life and ₹25 lakh: mass conversion.
Where to go next
- Article 25: The scope and limits of religious freedom
- Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh: The 1977 ruling behind these laws
- Hadiya case: Autonomy and the choice of faith
- Right to privacy: The strongest argument against prior notice
In one line: The constitutionality of anti-conversion laws now turns on whether Rev. Stainislaus survives later rulings on privacy and autonomy.
The 1977 foundation
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh upheld laws against conversion by force, fraud or allurement, and held States could legislate on this under public order.
Newer principles
- Puttaswamy (2017) made the Right to privacy a fundamental right, including decisional autonomy.
- The Hadiya case (2018) held that an adult's choice of faith and partner is protected.
These suggest that requiring public notice of a private decision may be disproportionate.
Design problems in recent laws
- Broad definitions of 'inducement'.
- Third-party complaints allowing others to trigger cases.
- Reverse burden of proof on the accused.
- Exemptions for 'reconversion' to an ancestral religion, which critics say treat religions unequally.
A proportionate approach
Target coercion and fraud with clear definitions, require complaints from the affected person, and avoid prior-permission regimes.
Where to go next
- Article 25: The scope and limits of religious freedom
- Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh: The 1977 ruling behind these laws
- Hadiya case: Autonomy and the choice of faith
- Right to privacy: The strongest argument against prior notice
Article 25
The scope and limits of religious freedom
In one line: Article 25 guarantees every person freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion.
Limits
It is subject to public order, morality and health and to other fundamental rights. The State can also regulate secular activities linked to religion and provide for social reform, including opening Hindu religious institutions to all classes.
Who it protects
It applies to all persons, including non-citizens.
Related Articles
Article 26 protects the rights of religious denominations to manage their affairs; Articles 27 and 28 deal with taxes for religious purposes and religious instruction in educational institutions.
Where to go next
- Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh: The 1977 ruling behind these laws
- Hadiya case: Autonomy and the choice of faith
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The 1977 ruling behind these laws
In one line: In 1977, a Constitution Bench upheld the Madhya Pradesh and Odisha anti-conversion laws, holding that the right to propagate does not include the right to convert.
Reasoning
Propagation means transmitting one's beliefs, not converting another person. Converting someone by force, fraud or allurement would impinge on that person's freedom of conscience.
Public order
The Court also held that States can legislate on conversion under their power over public order.
Continuing relevance
All later State anti-conversion laws rely on this judgment, which is why challenges today argue that it must be reconsidered in light of privacy and autonomy rulings.
Where to go next
- Article 25: The scope and limits of religious freedom
- Hadiya case: Autonomy and the choice of faith
Hadiya case
Autonomy and the choice of faith
In one line: In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan (2018), the Supreme Court restored the marriage of an adult woman who had converted, holding that her choice of faith and partner was protected.
The facts
The Kerala High Court had annulled the marriage of Hadiya, an adult who converted to Islam and married, in a habeas corpus petition by her father.
The ruling
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its powers, and that an adult's choice of faith and marriage is part of personal liberty under Article 21.
Relevance
It is cited against laws that require permission or scrutiny before conversion or interfaith marriage.
Where to go next
- Article 25: The scope and limits of religious freedom
- Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh: The 1977 ruling behind these laws
Right to privacy
The strongest argument against prior notice
In one line: In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge bench held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 and Part III.
What it includes
Informational privacy, bodily integrity and decisional autonomy, meaning the freedom to make personal choices such as faith, food and relationships.
The test
Restrictions must have a legal basis, a legitimate aim, and be proportionate.
Relevance to conversion laws
Critics argue that requiring public notice of a conversion, and allowing objections, fails the proportionality test.
Where to go next
- Article 25: The scope and limits of religious freedom
- Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh: The 1977 ruling behind these laws
Take the 25 September 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers