With regard to interreligious marriages, the Act further stipulates that: «Any marriage contracted for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion or, conversely, by the man of one religion, with the woman of another religion, either by conversion before or after marriage or by conversion of the woman before or after marriage, is declared null and void. ». «Karnataka`s anti-conversion law, as in other states, violates Article 25 of the Indian constitution and threatens the secular fabric of the country,» an EFIRLC spokesperson said. «We need to challenge it in court if necessary.» Prior to India`s independence, during the British Raj, Hindu princely states such as Kota, Patna, Surguja, Udaipur and Kalahandi passed laws restricting religious conversions «in order to preserve Hindu religious identity against Muslims». On 9 January 2021, the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Ordinance 2020 came into force. Home Minister Narottam Mishra, according to reports, after the state cabinet approved the order, said that «Madhya Pradesh`s law will be the strictest in the country.» Although it was originally a bill, the government decided to issue an order because a bill could not be introduced in the provincial assembly because the winter session had been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a general rule, a violation of section 3 of the regulations, the main prohibition on conversion by marriage, is punishable by imprisonment of one to five years and a fine of at least 25,000 rupees (about $343). The regulation also contains caveats similar to those in Uttar Pradesh, but with an additional clause, Article 5, which states that «anyone who intends to marry a person of a religion other than the one he knows and hides his religion in such a way that the other person he wishes to marry believes that his religion is really the religion he confesses». commits a criminal offence. Hindu nationalists have fueled fears of «illegal conversion» for years, claiming that Christian groups are using their social services – religious organisations are over-represented in India relative to their share of the population in the education, health and charity sectors – to illegally convert Hindus, especially those from marginalised lower castes. The myth of anti-conversion laws is not that they exist: it is true and increasingly. The myth is why. Although India`s constitution states that the country is secular, these laws have been used to restrict the religious freedom of minorities – claiming they aim to protect Hindus from forced conversion.

A look at the anti-conversion laws in different states over the years, their similarities and differences: Madhya Pradesh was the second state to have anti-conversion laws. It passed its Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam (Religious Freedom Act) in 1968, which enforced «the prohibition of conversion from one religion to another by the use of force or temptation or by fraudulent means and related matters.» An offence punishable by one year`s imprisonment or a fine of INR 1,000 or both. [16] The Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Ordinance 2020, which came into force in 2021, provides for offences punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of INR 5,000. In the case of a minor, a woman or a member of a planned caste or tribe, imprisonment may be up to two years and a fine of INR 10,000. [15] The first Indian state to pass an anti-conversion law was Orissa in 1968, followed by Madhya Pradesh the same year and Arunachal Pradesh in 1978. Section 3 of the 2018 law prohibits conversion from one religion to another by misrepresentation, violence, fraud, undue influence, coercion, temptation or marriage. This is subject to the controversial condition that «if a person returns to his ancestral religion, it is not considered a conversion under this law». Violations of article 3 are punishable by imprisonment for one to five years and a fine. Harsher penalties of two to seven years` imprisonment apply if the crime involves minors, women or a person belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Another provision provides that marriages contracted solely for the purpose of conversion will be declared null and void by a family court: In 2019, the Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission, under the leadership of Justice Aditya Nath Mittal, prepared a report on illegal religious conversions and a Uttar Pradesh Religious Freedom Bill. 2019. [15] The long title of the bill was «Ensuring freedom of religion by prohibiting the conversion of one religion to another by misrepresentation, violence, undue influence, coercion, temptation or fraudulent means, or by marriage, and related matters.» [16] The Commission stated that the Indian Penal Code was «not sufficient» to prevent conversions.

[13] «Any converted person, his parents, brother, sister or any other person related to him by blood, marriage or adoption, or who is related to him in any way, may lodge a complaint against such conversion. It leaves room to harass someone without rhyme or reason,» he told Crux. In India, anti-conversion laws were introduced for some Hindu princely states in the 1930s under British rule. The aim was to prevent Christianisation and to «preserve Hindu religious identity vis-à-vis British missionaries». [12] The Raigarh State Conversion Act of 1936 was enforced by Chief Raigarh Chakradhar Singh to protect the lower castes and tribes of the Hindu community. [13] Patna`s Religious Freedom Law of 1942, the Sarguja State Apostasy Law of 1945, and the Udaipur State Anti-Conversion Law of 1946 were introduced later. [14] The law prohibits forced religious conversions, but also establishes the procedure for effecting a religious conversion. Not a person who forces someone to convert through «false statement, coercion and temptation.» It adds: «Marriages contracted for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion or, conversely, to be declared null and void.» The convert or other persons who are related by blood may file a complaint. The law imposes imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs 50,000 or both and imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs 1 lakh or both if the convert is a minor, a woman or a member of SC or ST. The DM must be informed of the «time, place and person performing the conversion procedure», the conversion and conversions obtaining his consent. Offences are not eligible for bail. The Karnataka Protection of the Right to Freedom of Religion, 2021, was passed in 2022, which prohibits unlawful interfaith marriages.

Any forced conversion is punishable by three to five years` imprisonment and a fine of INR 25,000. If the offender is a minor, a woman or a member of a planned caste or tribe, the penalty is increased from three to ten years` imprisonment and a fine of INR 50,000. The mass conversion will result in three to ten years in prison and a fine of INR 100,000. [19] The BJP party, which is also in power nationally, is allied with a Hindu nationalist organization and has passed anti-conversion laws – the country`s Muslim and Christian minorities – in the parliaments of the states it controls. An investigation into the allegations revealed that there had been no «forced conversions» in his district, and all converts interviewed said they had done so out of their own will and belief. The law makes conversion without bail with up to 10 years in prison if done through disinformation, illegal, violent, temptation or other allegedly fraudulent means. The law also stipulates that religious conversions for marriage in Uttar Pradesh must be approved by a district judge. The law also includes strict measures for mass conversions, including the removal of registration of social organizations involved in mass religious conversion. [5] In addition, in the case of allegations of forced conversion, the law states that the burden of proof is on the accused. In December and January, the court also intervened against police harassment of interfaith couples, including the repression of a complaint against a Muslim man. He noted in a petition that «the court has repeatedly ruled that if the two people who have reached the age of majority live together, no one has the right to interfere in their peaceful lives.» A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) motion was also filed challenging the constitutional validity of the regulation, and the court refused to dismiss the motions on the grounds that the government would review the issue by the Supreme Court.