“Anti-conversion laws being weaponised”: CJP seeks interim relief against misuse of anti-conversion laws Citizens for Justice and Peace urges interim relief to curb weaponisation of anti-conversion laws, challenges 2024 UP amendment enabling third-party complaints and harsher penalties
17, Apr 2025 | CJP Team
On April 16, 2025, a hearing on the anti-conversion petitions took place in the Supreme Court. The hearing was an application for early hearing of the matters pending since December 2020 and another application seeking interim relief. Both were filed by the Citizens for Justice and Peace, Mumbai (CJP). CJP had first, in December 2020-February 2021, filed petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh laws passed earlier and thereafter, in 2023, amended their plea to include similar laws passed in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka. CJP is the lead petitioner in this matter.
The recent applications were filed in response to the ongoing misuse of anti-conversion laws by several states. The petition was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.
The illusion of ‘Love Jihad’ has led violence and intimidation by police and non-state actors. The ‘Love Jihad’ laws legitimise un-constitutional, anti-minority and misogynistic beliefs, and help further the hateful, communal agenda of extremists. CJP is challenging these laws as they impinge upon the privacy, freedoms and autonomy of consenting adults. Help CJP fight for equality and choice. Donate now to denounce Love Jihad and keep #LoveAzaad.
Within weeks of the ordinance being first enforced in Uttar Pradesh in 2020 and then being passed as a law (2021) incidents of assault, violence and intimidation against adult couples, especially those belonging to marginalised sections were reported, and these in the past four years plus, have only intensified. Set in its path the Uttar Pradesh government however, further amended the law last year in 2024, amending sections to further enhance punitive measures, both monetary and penal for those that the state considers “offenders.” CJP’s present applications incorporate these developments.
Senior Advocate CU Singh, representing CJP, argued that the anti-conversion laws were being “weaponised” to target specific communities and interfaith couples, stressing that the laws were being misused repeatedly. Singh requested the bench to issue a notice on the application for interim relief to prevent further misuse of these laws, which he claimed were infringing upon individual freedoms, including the right to marry across faiths. He also urged that the most damaging sections be stayed until the final hearing of the matter.
In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered, stating that there were no instances of misuse to support the claims made by CJP. At this point, CJI Khanna instructed Attorney General R. Venkataramani to review the various petitions and instances being highlighted, and inform the Court which applications the Union government may not oppose, while also filing responses where objections existed. The Court directed that non-applicants submit their responses to the applications, even in the absence of a formal notice being issued. The matter has now been scheduled to be heard again on a non-miscellaneous day, ensuring that proceedings would move forward expeditiously.
The hearing that took place on April 16 formed part of a larger challenge to the constitutionality of anti-conversion laws, with CJP asserting that such laws violate individuals’ freedom of choice and the right to choose their religion. Additionally, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind has also filed a transfer petition to have 21 cases pending in six High Courts consolidated before the Supreme Court. In Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, High Courts have granted partial stays to some sections. These interim orders have also been challenged by these state governments before the Supreme Court.
Details of the IA filed by CJP
The interim application (IA) filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace in the Supreme Court is aimed at emphasising how the practice of the law –over the past four years and more –has resulted in widespread mis-use, to further enhance the original argument on constitutionality of the statutes. The IA contains a detailed table of reported instances of mis-use and attacks on fundamental freedons of life and choice especially from Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh. The application specifically addresses the pattern of abuse of these laws to target women, couples and also to harass minorities, including Christians and Muslims, under the pretext of ‘regulating religious conversions.’
The CJP has contended that these anti-conversion laws, although allegedly framed to prevent forced conversions, are being weaponised by far right organizations and state authorities to falsely accuse individuals, create a climate of fear, and discriminate against minorities. One of the key concerns highlighted in the IA is the pattern of abuse by far right groups, who use these laws to initiate false complaints and pressure law enforcement to act against individuals or communities, often without any credible evidence. In several instances, these complaints are lodged by third parties with vested interests, such as organisations or individuals aligned with right-wing political agendas, rather than the individuals or families affected by the alleged conversions.
The application further argues that the laws do not provide adequate safeguards against misuse, with one of the major concerns being the tendency of state authorities to act on complaints without conducting any preliminary inquiry or verification. This has led to arbitrary arrests, detentions, and the imposition of social and legal stigma on the accused, particularly from minority communities. The CJP has urged that the Court issue detailed guidelines mandating a pre-FIR inquiry by competent authorities to prevent the misuse of these laws. The organisation has emphasised that such safeguards are necessary to ensure that the laws are not used for political or social persecution, which is the current trend in certain states.
CJP has also raised the concern that these laws violate fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of religion and the right to live with dignity. The application has cited multiple instances where individuals, particularly from marginalized communities, have been wrongfully accused under these laws, leading to their harassment, societal alienation, and even criminal charges based on unfounded allegations. This is particularly evident in Uttar Pradesh, where the law has been used extensively to target Muslim communities, despite there being no evidence of forced conversions.
A significant concern raised in the IA pertains to the 2024 amendment to the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. This amendment removed a key safeguard that had previously limited the filing of complaints to the person whose conversion was allegedly coerced or their immediate family. Following the amendment, any individual—including politically motivated third parties or members of Hindutva groups—can now lodge a complaint, regardless of their relationship to the concerned parties. CJP has argued that this has legitimised and expanded the role of communal vigilantes, allowing them to misuse the law to harass consenting adults in interfaith relationships, often with the support or inaction of law enforcement agencies. Additionally, stringent punishments have also been introduced through the said amendment.
In light of these abuses, the CJP has requested urgent judicial intervention from the Supreme Court. Specifically, the IA seeks interim relief in the form of directions to the authorities to ensure that no FIR is registered under the anti-conversion laws without a thorough investigation and a genuine, evidence-based complaint. It has also urged the Court to consider issuing interim guidelines that would prevent the automatic registration of cases and would impose a more rigorous procedural requirement before such charges can be brought.
The application stresses that these anti-conversion laws, instead of protecting individual rights, have become tools for furthering divisive and discriminatory agendas, violating the constitutional guarantees of equality and religious freedom. By seeking these safeguards and judicial oversight, CJP hopes to curb the misuse of these laws and ensure that they are not used to further religious persecution or target specific communities under the guise of religious freedom.
Brief background of the petition
In February 2021 notice had been issued to Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh. Then in 2023, the Supreme Court had issued notice to five states—Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka—following a renewed challenge to their anti-conversion laws. This petition, filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), was a continuation of their previous challenge to similar laws in Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttarakhand.
The CJP writ petition, amended in 2023, challenged the constitutionality of anti-conversion laws passed by these states, arguing that these laws violate fundamental rights, particularly the freedom of individuals to marry and convert based on their personal choices. This renewed challenge followed CJP’s initial petition in 2020, which led to the issuance of notices by the Supreme Court. The Court had granted CJP permission to amend its original writ petition to include newer anti-conversion laws enacted in additional states. The petition contends that the laws have been weaponised to harass and intimidate interfaith couples, often under the guise of combating “Love Jihad.” According to CJP, the laws not only infringe on personal freedoms but also legitimize discriminatory and unconstitutional practices that target minorities, especially women, and exacerbate communal tensions.
This table, computed for the CJP’s 2020 petition and presented to the Court, computes the most egregious sections of the law in some of these states:
| UP ordinance | HP Act | Uttarakhand Act | MP ordinance | |||
| Definitions
|
||||||
| “Allurement” means and includes offer of any temptation in the form of any gift or gratification or material benefit, either in cash or kind or employment, free education in reputed school run by any religious body, easy money, better lifestyle, divine pleasure or otherwise;
|
“Inducement” means and includes offer of any temptation in the form of any gift
or gratification or material benefit, either in cash or kind or employment, free education in reputed school run by any religious body, easy money, better lifestyle, divine pleasure or otherwise; |
“Allurement” means and includes offer of any temptation in the form of any gift or gratification or material benefit, either in cash or kind or employment, free education in reputed school run by any religious body, easy money, better lifestyle, divine pleasure or otherwise;
|
“Allurement” means and includes offer of any temptation in the form of any gift or gratification or material benefit, either in cash or kind or employment, education in reputed school run by any religious body, better lifestyle, divine pleasure or promise of it or otherwise;
|
|||
| – | – |
“Convincing for conversion” means to make one person agree to renounce one’s religion and adopt another religion;
|
– | |||
| “Force” includes a show of force or a threat of injury of any kind to the person converted or sought to be converted or to any other person or property
|
“Force” includes a show of force or a threat of injury of any kind to the person converted or sought to be converted or to any other person or property including a threat of divine displeasure or social excommunication;
|
“Force” includes a show of force or a threat of injury of any kind to the person converted or sought to be converted or to any other person or property including a threat of divine displeasure or social excommunication;
|
“Force” includes a show of force or a threat of injury of any kind to the person converted or to his parents, siblings or any other person related by marriage, adoption, guardianship or custodianship or their property including a threat of divine displeasure or social excommunication | |||
| “Fraudulent means” includes impersonation of any kind, impersonation by false name, surname, religious symbol or otherwise | “fraudulent” means to do a thing with intent to defraud | “Fraudulent” includes misrepresentation of any kind or any other fraudulent contrivance
|
“Fraudulent” includes misrepresentation of any kind or any other fraudulent contrivance
|
|||
| “Coercion” means compelling an individual to act against his/her will by the use of psychological pressure or physical force causing bodily injury or threat thereof;
|
“Coercion” means compelling an individual to act against his will by the use of psychological pressure or physical force causing bodily injury or threat thereof;
|
“Coercion” means compelling an individual to act against his will by the use of psychological pressure or physical force causing bodily injury or threat thereof;
|
“Coercion” means compelling an individual to act against his will by any means whatsoever including the use of psychological pressure or physical force causing bodily injury or threat thereof;
|
|||
| “Undue influence” means the unconscientious use by one person of his/her power or influence over another in order to persuade the other to act in accordance with the will of the person exercising such influence.
|
“Undue influence” means the unconscientious use by one person of his power or influence over another in order to persuade the other to act in accordance with the will of the person exercising such influence.
|
“Undue influence” means the unconscientious use by one person of his power or influence over another in order to persuade the other to act in accordance with the will of the person exercising such influence.
|
“Undue influence” means the unconscientious use by one person of his power or influence over another in order to persuade the other to act in accordance with the will of the person exercising such influence.
|
|||
| “Conversion” means renouncing one’s own religion and adopting another
|
“Conversion” means renouncing one religion and adopting another
|
“Conversion” means renouncing one religion and adopting another | “Conversion” means renouncing one religion and adopting another but the return of any person already converted to the fold of his parental religion shall not be deemed conversion | |||
| “Religion convertor” means person of any religion who performs any act of conversion from one religion to another religion and by whatever name he is called such as Father, Karmkandi, Maulvi or Mulla etc | “Religious priest” means priest of any religion who performs purification Sanskar or conversion ceremony of any religion and by whatever name he is called such as pujari, pandit, mulla, maulvi, father etc.,
|
“Religious priest” means priest of any religion who performs purification Sanskar or conversion ceremony of any religion and by whatever name he is called such as pujari, pandit, mulla, maulvi, father etc.,
|
“Religious priest” means and includes a person professing any religion and who performs rituals including purification Sanskar or conversion ceremony of any religion and by whatever name he is called such as pujari, pandit, qazi, mulla, maulvi and father
|
|||
| “Mass conversion” means where two or more persons are converted | – | – | “Mass conversion” means where more than two persons are converted at the same time | |||
| “unlawful conversion” means any conversion not in accordance with law of the land | – | – | – | |||
| Punishment for contravention of | ||||||
| Section 3 | Section 3 | Section 3 | Section 3 | |||
| Min. 1 year
Max. 5 years Fine of Min. Rs. 15,000 |
Min. 1 year
Max. 5 years Fine (no specific amount) |
Min. 1 year
Max. 5 years Fine (no specific amount) |
Min. 1 year
Max. 5 years Fine of Min. Rs. 25,000 |
|||
| If unlawful conversion is against minor/woman/SC ST | ||||||
| Min. 2 years
Max. 10 years Fine of min. 25,000 |
Min. 2 years
Max. 7 years Fine (no specific amount) |
Min. 2 years
Max. 7 years Fine (no specific amount) |
Min. 2 years
Max. 10 years Fine of min. 50,000 |
|||
| Conceals religion while marrying person of other religion | ||||||
| No such provision | No such provision | No such provision | Min. 3 years
Max. 10 years Fine of min. 50,000 |
|||
| If mass conversion is committed | ||||||
| Mins. 3 years
Max. 10 years Fine of min. 50,000 |
No such provision | No such provision | Mins. 5 years
Max. 10 years Fine of min. 1,00,000 |
|||
| Compensation | ||||||
| Court shall order accused to pay victim compensation max. Rs. 5 lakhs | No such provision | No such provision | No such provision | |||
| Repeat offender | ||||||
| For every subsequent offence, punishment not exceeding double the punishment provided for in the ordinance | No such provision | No such provision | Mins. 5 years
Max. 10 years Fine (no specific amount) |
|||
| Failure of individual to give declaration to DM before conversion | ||||||
| Min. 6 months
Max. 3 years Fine of min. Rs. 10,000 |
Min. 3 months
Max. 1 year Fine |
Min. 3 months
Max. 1 year Fine |
No such provision | |||
| Failure of religious priest to give notice to DM | ||||||
| Min. 1 years
Max. 5 years Fine of min. Rs. 25,000 |
Min. 6 months
Max. 2 years Fine |
Min. 6 months
Max. 2 years Fine |
Min. 3 years
Max. 5 years Fine of min. Rs. 50,000 |
|||
| Violation of provisions by institution/organization | ||||||
| the person in charge is liable as an individual would be, under the relevant provisions | the person in charge is liable as an individual would be, under the relevant provisions | the person in charge is liable as an individual would be, under the relevant provisions | the person in charge is liable as an individual would be, under the relevant provisions | |||
| the registration of the institution or organization may be cancelled upon reference made by DM in this regard | the registration of the institution or organization may be cancelled after giving opportunity to be heard. | the registration of the institution or organization may be cancelled after giving opportunity to be heard. | the registration of the institution or organization may be rescinded by competent authority | |||
| Parties to offence | ||||||
| Anyone who does the act, enables (or omits to), aids, abets, counsels, convinces or procures any other person to commit the offence | Anyone who does the act, enables (or omits to), aids, abets, counsels, causes any other person to commit the offence | Anyone who does the act, enables (or omits to), aids, abets, counsels, procures any other person to commit the offence | No such provision | |||
| Burden of proof | ||||||
| To prove that conversion
was not effected through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage lies on the person who has caused the conversion or if facilitated, then by that person |
To prove that conversion
was not effected through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, inducement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage lies on the person so converted or if facilitated, then by that person |
To prove that conversion
was not effected through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage lies on the person so converted or if facilitated, then by that person |
To prove that conversion
was not effected through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any fraudulent means or by marriage lies on the accused |
|||
Central to CJP’s arguments has been the assertion that the anti-conversion laws create an atmosphere of suspicion around interfaith marriages, subjecting them to legal and social scrutiny. These laws equate conversion for marriage with coercion, fraud, or force, thus casting a shadow over consensual, interfaith unions. The petition had highlighted several troubling provisions, including mandatory prior and post-conversion reporting requirements, vague and overbroad definitions of “inducement” or “allurement,” and a reversed burden of proof, which forces individuals to prove that their conversion and marriage were not coercive. CJP has argued that such provisions violate key constitutional rights, including the right to privacy, autonomy, and the freedom of conscience under Articles 14, 21, and 25.
Moreover, CJP has contended that these laws disproportionately target interfaith couples, effectively deterring individuals from exercising their right to choose their partner and religion freely. The petition asserted that the laws, while ostensibly neutral, disproportionately affect certain religious communities and undermine the secular ethos enshrined in the Constitution. By criminalising conversions linked to marriage, the laws place unnecessary hurdles in the way of interfaith unions, undermining both personal freedoms and the very fabric of constitutional equality. As the matter progresses, the Court’s eventual decision could have significant implications for the legal treatment of religious conversions and interfaith marriages in India, potentially reshaping the boundaries of personal freedom and religious choice.
Detailed reports may be read here and here.
Related:
SC issues notice to 5 states in CJP’s renewed challenge to anti-conversion laws
