The Freedom of Religion Act of 1978 (“the Act”), also called an “Anti-Conversion Law,” is a dormant law set to be implemented in Arunachal Pradesh, a northeastern state of India.[1] This law aims to prevent conversions of any person’s religious faith by “use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means.”[2] The Act is not alone, as similar laws are debated and/or enacted in other South Asian countries like Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Bhutan.[3] While proponents of anti-conversion laws argue that the Act protects religious freedom and preserves cultural heritage, I argue its broader implications infringe on fundamental rights of freedom of belief and expression enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (“UNDHR”) and the Indian Constitution, and further, it injects something as private and personal as ones spiritual beliefs into the realm of the public sphere.
A closer look at the historical and social context reveals the complexity of these laws. India has long been a tapestry of religious diversity. Yet, demographic shifts and increasing conversions to “western religions” (understood as Christianity and Islam) caused fear that Indian culture and tribal religious values were being eroded.[4] The legislature adopted the Act to combat these perceived threats. Along with prohibiting “forceful conversions,” the Act mandates individuals to report “ceremony’s necessary for such conversions” to government authorities. Penalties for violating the Act range from hefty fines to 1-2 years imprisonment. The Act is currently in force in eight out of twenty-nine Indian states, but has largely remained dormant due to its controversy.[5]
The Act encroaches on the right to believe, express, and practice which are enshrined in the UNDHR and the Indian Constitution. Article 18 of the UNDHR safeguards the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion while Article 19 protects the right to freedom of opinion and expression.[6] Articles 25 Indian Constitution guarantees the freedoms of expression and religious practice as Article 19 guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression.[7]
The tension between what the Act regulates and the freedom to practice one’s religion was brought before the court in two cases, Yulitha Hyde v. The State of Orissa (1972)[8] and Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977).[9] Yulitha was brought by four Indian Roman Catholic priests who were prosecuted under the Act. The High Court of the state ruled the Act infringed on Article 25 of the Indian constitution in that it infringed on the priests right to practice their religion. [10] Two years later, however, the Supreme Court of India in Stainislaus overruled the former case, holding the Act ensured public order, health, and safety and that while the right to practice one’s religion is valid, there is “no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own religion.”[11]
The Act ostensibly protects minority religions from the threat of conversion, but the language of the Act is broad—leading to interpretation challenges and potential reinforcement of negative religious stereotypes. Proponents of the Act, like Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu, defend the law as a safeguard of ancestral heritage.[12] Other advocates, such as Swami Dayanand Saraswati, view conversion efforts as an affront to their faith, equating them with cultural “violence.”[13] However, opposers of the Act argue that state-level anti-conversion laws reinforce negative stereotypes and religious-based violence and challenge Indian secularism, emphasizing their misuse to favor Hinduism.[14] For example, some anti-conversion acts exempt reconversions to the “religion of one’s forefathers,” which is read as Hinduism.[15] The interpretation challenges include determining what amounts to a “forceful conversion.” The broadness in the Act’s language leaves it up to the government, potentially turning it into a “political instrument rather than a genuine safeguard of religious freedoms.”[16]
The burden of proof used to determine whether the Act has been violated is also problematic. For example, the burden to determine whether a conversion took place “lies on the person who has caused the conversion and on the abettor…” not with the person who chooses to convert. [17] This removes the person who is converted from the process altogether and they are the person who is in the best position to claim whether the conversion occurred via fraud. Another conflict is the Act’s reporting provisions which unnecessarily injects one’s spiritual belief into the realm of public affairs. The provisions, along with its heavy penalties, deter genuine practices of faith and voluntary conversions altogether. Lastly, while it claims to maintain public order, reports of harassment and discrimination of religious minorities actually increase with the presence of such laws.[18]
In conclusion, The Freedom of Religion Act should be recognized for what it is—an anti-conversion law that impermissibly restricts the freedom of believe, practice, and express one’s religion. The Act throws what too many lies at the core of our lives—our spiritual values—into the realm of the government sphere. Courts should be wary of allowing such acts to continue in light of the broadens of the Act’s terms and associated violence and stigmatization that occurs against religious minorities when such acts are in place.
[1] Arnav Laroia, India State Official Announces Plans to Revive Dormant Freedom of Religion Act, THE JURIST (Dec. 29, 2024), https://www.jurist.org/NEWS/2024/12/ARUNACHAL-PRADESH-PM-ANNOUNCES-PLANS-TO-REVIVE-AND-IMPLEMENT-DORMANT-FREEDOM-OF-RELIGION-ACT.
[2] Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978, Act No. 4 of 1978 (India 1978).
[3] Bhat, M. Mohsin Alam. Religious Freedom in Contest: Enforcing Religion through Anti-Conversion Laws in India, J. of L., Religion and State, vol. 9, no. 2–3, 2021, pp. 178–211, https://doi.org/10.1163/22124810-2021J003.
[4] Selvaraj, M. Sudhir, Acts of Violence? Anti-Conversion Laws in India, Social & Legal Studies, vol. 33, no. 5, 2024, pp. 790–807, https://doi.org/10.1177/09646639241251613.
[5] Ahmad, Tariq, and Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Directorate, State Anti-Conversion Laws in India, The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center, 2017.
[6] G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 18 and 19 (Dec. 10, 1948).
[7] India Const. art. 19. And 25.
[8] Mrs. Yulitha Hyde And Ors. v. State Of Orissa, AIR 1973 Ori 116.
[9] Rev. Stainislaus v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, 1977 SCR (2) 61.
[10] India Const. art. 25.
“Subject to public order,’ morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.”
[11] Rev. Stainislaus, 1977 SCR (2) 61.
[12] Not to Target Any Religion, Says Pema Khandu on Arunachal Anti-Conversion Law, Hindustan Times (Apr. 2, 2025), https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/not-to-target-any-religion-says-pema-khandu-on-arunachal-anti-conversion-law-101740070847072.html.
[13] Selvaraj, supra.
[14] USCIRF, Annual Report 2016: India 162, http://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/USCIRF 2016 Annual Report.pdf, archived at https://perma.cc/A5NM-947L.
[15] Wilson, Luke, and issuing body United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, India’s State-Level Anti-Conversion Laws, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, 2023.
[16] Id.
[17] Selvaraj, supra.
[18] Wilson, supra.
