Supreme Court defers hearing in batch of petitions, led by CJP, challenging state Anti-Conversion laws; interim relief applications pending since April 2025

Supreme Court defers hearing in batch of petitions, led by CJP, challenging state Anti-Conversion laws; interim relief applications pending since April 2025 Petitions pending since 2020 question constitutional validity of conversion-regulating statutes enacted by nine States; next hearing fixed for February 3, 2026

29, Jan 2026 | CJP Team

On January 28, 2026, the Supreme Court could not take up for hearing the batch of writ petitions, led by Citizens for Justice and Peace, challenging the constitutional validity of various State enactments regulating religious conversion due to paucity of time. The matter was listed before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, but could not reach in the course of the day’s proceedings. The Court has now directed that the matter be listed on February 3, 2026. CJP’s band of counsel have been prepared to urge a hearing on their application for a stay on the most egregious provisions of the states’ anti-conversion laws.

This was the thirteenth occasion on which the petitions have been listed before the Supreme Court. The proceedings arise from a group of writ petitions pending since 2020, raising substantial constitutional questions concerning the scope of freedom of conscience, personal liberty, equality, and the extent of State power to regulate religious conversion and interfaith marriages. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh, Advocate Srishti Agnihotri and Advocate Sanjana Thomas are representing CJP, the first and lead petitioner in the case.

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.

Origin and expansion of the challenge

The challenge was first initiated in January 2020, when the Supreme Court issued notice on petitions questioning the constitutional validity of laws enacted by certain States to regulate religious conversion. These early petitions focused on statutes in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh.

Over time, similar laws were enacted in additional States. In 2023, the Supreme Court permitted Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP)—the lead petitioner in the batch—to amend its writ petition to bring within the scope of the proceedings comparable statutes enacted in Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka. As a result, the present batch now concerns nine State enactments, each styled as a “Freedom of Religion” or “Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion” law.

The petitions contend that although framed as measures to prevent forced or fraudulent conversions, the impugned statutes impose criminal, procedural, and administrative burdens on the exercise of individual choice in matters of faith and marriage.

Hearing of April 16, 2025: Applications for early hearing and interim relief

A significant procedural development occurred on April 16, 2025, when the Supreme Court heard applications filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace seeking (i) an early hearing of the long-pending petitions and (ii) interim relief in light of continued enforcement of the impugned laws.

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar. The applications were filed against the backdrop of the ongoing operation of the anti-conversion statutes across several States and subsequent legislative amendments, including amendments enhancing penalties and expanding the scope of offences.

Appearing for CJP, Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh submitted that the interim applications were necessitated by the manner in which the laws were being implemented on the ground. It was urged that certain provisions—particularly those relating to prior declarations before conversion, criminalisation of conversion associated with marriage, third-party complaints, and reversal of burden of proof—were resulting in repeated invocation of penal provisions against consenting adults. Singh requested the Court to issue notice on the interim relief application and to stay the operation of the most consequential provisions pending final adjudication.

On behalf of the Union of India, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contested the submission that there were instances of misuse warranting interim relief. In response, the Bench directed Attorney General R. Venkataramani to examine the applications and indicate the Union’s position on the various prayers raised therein, including identifying aspects that may not be opposed.

The Court further directed that States and non-applicants file responses to the interim applications, even in the absence of a formal notice, with a view to ensuring that pleadings are completed expeditiously. The matter was directed to be listed on a non-miscellaneous day, signalling the Court’s intent to take up the applications in a substantive manner.

Details of the proceedings may be read here.

Proceedings of September 16, 2025: Directions on pleadings and de-tagging

The batch of petitions, along with the pending interlocutory applications, came up for consideration on September 16, 2025, before a Bench comprising then Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

At this stage, the Court directed nine respondent States—Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka—to file detailed responses to the applications seeking interim stay of their respective statutes.

The Court granted four weeks’ time to the States to file affidavits in reply and indicated that the matter would be taken up for consideration of interim relief after completion of pleadings. To facilitate the preparation of common compilations and streamline submissions, the Court appointed Advocate Srishti Agnihotri as nodal counsel for the petitioners and Advocate Ruchira Goel as nodal counsel for the respondents.

During the same hearing, the Court considered a separate Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which sought directions for a pan-India law to criminalise religious conversions carried out through deceit or coercion. The Bench clarified that the subject matter of that petition was distinct from the constitutional challenge to existing State enactments and accordingly de-tagged the Upadhyay petition from the present batch.

Detailed proceedings may be read here.

Nature of the impugned statutes

Across the nine States, the impugned laws generally contain provisions that regulate religious conversion through a combination of prior declarations, criminal penalties, and procedural presumptions. The petitioners have argued that these provisions, taken together, create a legal regime in which conversion is treated as inherently suspect, particularly when it occurs in the context of interfaith relationships or marriage.

A central feature of many of the statutes is the requirement that a person intending to convert must give prior notice to a District Magistrate or other designated authority. In several States, this declaration is followed by a police inquiry or verification process, and in some cases, the declaration is required to be publicly displayed. The petitions argue that such requirements subject the exercise of freedom of conscience to prior executive approval, thereby altering the constitutional relationship between the individual and the State.

Another significant feature is the manner in which conversion associated with marriage is addressed. Several statutes presume that conversion undertaken for the purpose of marriage is suspect and may amount to conversion by force, fraud, or allurement. According to the petitioners, this effectively places consensual interfaith marriages under criminal scrutiny, even in the absence of any allegation by the individuals concerned.

The statutes also commonly permit persons other than the allegedly aggrieved individual to lodge complaints, thereby enabling third-party intervention in private relationships. In addition, many of the laws reverse the burden of proof, requiring the accused to demonstrate that a conversion was voluntary, and impose stringent bail conditions that can result in prolonged incarceration.

During the course of the hearings, CJP (petitioners) drew the Court’s attention to legislative amendments and judicial developments relating to individual State statutes.

Particular reference was made to amendments introduced by the State of Uttar Pradesh in 2024 to its Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act. It was submitted that these amendments enhanced the penal consequences under the statute, including the introduction of minimum sentences extending to long terms of imprisonment and the imposition of bail conditions similar to those found in special statutes. It was also pointed out that the amendments expanded the category of persons who may lodge complaints under the Act.

The petitioners (CJP) also relied on interim orders passed by High Courts in challenges to similar laws. The Gujarat High Court has stayed the operation of certain provisions of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act on the ground that they impinge upon the right of consenting adults to marry. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stayed provisions requiring prior declaration to the District Magistrate. Appeals against these interim orders are presently pending before the Supreme Court.

Related proceedings and de-tagging of a connected petition

During the September 16, 2025 hearing, the Supreme Court also addressed the status of a petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which sought directions for the enactment of a central law regulating religious conversions. The Court directed that this petition be de-tagged from the present batch, observing that its subject matter was distinct from the challenge to the constitutional validity of existing State enactments.

Submissions on personal liberty and gender concerns

In addition to CJP, several interveners have placed submissions on record. The National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) has raised concerns regarding the impact of these laws on women’s autonomy, particularly in cases involving interfaith relationships. It has been contended that the statutory framework tends to treat adult women as lacking agency in matters of choice, thereby inviting State and familial intervention.

Position as of the latest listing

As of the listing on January 28, 2026, the Supreme Court has not yet heard arguments on the interlocutory applications seeking interim relief, nor has it commenced final hearing on the constitutional validity of the impugned statutes. The matter now stands listed for February 3, 2026.

The outcome of the forthcoming proceedings will determine whether interim directions are issued pending final adjudication of questions that bear on the interpretation of Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution, and on the extent to which the State may regulate religious conversion without infringing upon personal liberty and freedom of conscience.

Below is a table, computed for the CJP’s 2020 petition and presented to the Court, which provides 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