The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued notices to the Centre and 12 states on a public interest litigation filed by a Christian body challenging the constitutional validity of various state anti-conversion laws, marking a significant development in a long-running legal battle over religious freedom and personal liberty.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took note of submissions made on behalf of the National Council of Churches in India and directed the respondents to file their replies within four weeks. The court also ordered that the fresh plea be tagged with similar petitions already pending before it, and said that all matters would be heard together by a three-judge bench.
The petition, filed by the National Council of Churches in India, seeks to challenge the validity of anti-conversion laws enacted by several states, arguing that these legislations infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Meenakshi Arora urged the court to stay the operation of the impugned laws, contending that their provisions are being misused and have created a climate of fear among religious minorities.
Court directions and Centre’s stand
During the hearing, the bench issued notices to the Union government and the states of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh. The court directed that copies of the petition be served on the advocate generals of the respective states and asked the respondents to file a common counter affidavit within the stipulated time.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, informed the court that similar petitions challenging anti-conversion laws were already pending and that the Union government’s response was ready and would be filed shortly. He opposed the plea for interim relief, arguing that the issues raised were covered by an earlier judgment of a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
The bench, however, observed that given the importance of the issues involved, the matter required detailed consideration. It made it clear that the prayer seeking a stay on the operation of the laws would be examined after responses from the Centre and the states were placed on record.
Concerns raised by the petitioner
Counsel for the National Council of Churches in India submitted that certain provisions of the state anti-conversion laws effectively encourage vigilante action by allowing complaints to be filed against alleged conversions. According to the petitioner, this has resulted in a spate of complaints, harassment, and criminal proceedings even in cases of voluntary religious conversion.
The petitioner also pointed out that some states, including Odisha and Rajasthan, had enacted or amended their laws after earlier petitions were filed, and therefore these legislations were not covered by previous challenges. Amendments made to other statutes, which were not under challenge earlier, were also flagged before the court. The petitioner sought permission to serve notices on all standing counsels to ensure comprehensive adjudication of the issues.
The plea argues that the anti-conversion laws violate Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to life and personal liberty and the freedom of conscience and religion. It contends that by imposing prior notice requirements, criminal penalties, and broad definitions of “force” and “allurement,” the laws enable excessive state interference in matters of personal belief and choice.
Background of the legal challenge
The Supreme Court has been hearing multiple petitions over the past several years challenging the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws enacted by various states. On September 16, 2025, the court had sought the stand of several states on similar pleas and had indicated that it would consider staying the operation of the laws once replies were filed.
To streamline proceedings in the batch of cases, the court had earlier appointed advocate Shrishti as nodal counsel for the petitioners and advocate Ruchira for the respondent states. The aim was to facilitate coordination and efficient exchange of documents in the matter.
The Centre, in earlier affidavits, had questioned the locus standi of some petitioners, including activist Teesta Setalvad’s NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace, alleging that such organisations were acting at the behest of selective political interests. The Union government had claimed that the NGO exploited the suffering of riot-affected people to raise funds, an allegation that has been strongly contested.
State laws under scrutiny
Among the laws under challenge are legislations enacted by Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, which regulate religious conversions, including those arising out of interfaith marriages. The Uttar Pradesh law applies not only to interfaith marriages but to all religious conversions and prescribes detailed procedures, including prior declarations and official inquiries, for those wishing to convert.
The Uttarakhand law, meanwhile, provides for imprisonment of up to two years for persons found guilty of effecting religious conversions through force or allurement. The term “allurement” is defined broadly to include cash, employment, or material benefits, a definition that petitioners argue is vague and prone to misuse.
The Supreme Court had first agreed on January 6, 2021, to examine the validity of these laws, acknowledging the serious constitutional questions they raise. Since then, the number of states with such legislations has grown, adding complexity to the legal challenge.
With the latest notices issued to the Centre and 12 states, the court has signalled its intent to take a comprehensive view of the matter. The outcome of the proceedings is expected to have far-reaching implications for the balance between state regulation and individual freedom of religion in India.
