​Spirit of the law: on legislation by Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh on religious conversions

​

Legislation passed by Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh recently on religious conversions misleadingly claims to protect freedom of religion but effectively does the opposite. Laws made by both States restrict the individual freedom of faith through requirements of prior permission from the state, public disclosure, and by shifting the burden of proof to the accused. These States now join at least 10 others in having detailed legal restrictions on an individual’s right to practise and profess any religion of their choice. It is true that the state has a duty to protect all citizens from force and fraud. But when that principle is applied to test whether a person’s religious faith is an outcome of criminal force or fraud, it is a leap into chaotic darkness even with the best of intentions. What goes on in a person’s mind, such as matters of faith, is not accessible to another person in its entirety, and any attempt to police faith will invariably lead to high-handedness. A batch of petitions challenging these laws has been pending before the Supreme Court of India, and the final status of the new laws in Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh will also be linked to the final determination of the constitutionality of such laws by the Court. Meanwhile, the laws will disturb social order and harmony, achieving the exact opposite of what they purportedly set out to do.

The provisions are harsh, intrusive and authoritarian. Under the Maharashtra law, a person intending to convert must give 60 days’ notice and seek prior permission from a designated authority. Conversion must be registered within 25 days, or it will be treated as null and void. The authority will publish the notice locally, including at the relevant gram panchayat, inviting objections within 30 days. If objections are received, the authority may direct police to conduct an inquiry. The Chhattisgarh legislation also has similar provisions, but additionally exempts reconversion to one’s ancestral religion from its purview. Even community religious gatherings can attract provisions of the Chhattisgarh law, which replaces a 1968 law made by undivided Madhya Pradesh. Anti-conversion laws are premised on a lack of agency of the individual and driven by an ideological framework that links nationality to faith. In a less passionate and more reasonable framing, a person’s change of faith is no different from their decision to change their passport, political affiliation, or place of residence — all of which are legal. In any case, religions have no basis in verifiable scientific facts, and propagation of religion, a constitutionally guaranteed right, can easily be misrepresented as fraud. By seeking to resolve a problem that does not exist, the Bharatiya Janata Party is serving only its own narrow political interests.