India’s top court raises constitutional concerns over Rajasthan’s 2025 anti-conversion law, seen by minorities as invasive and punitive, in a case backed by Catholic bishops
Newsroom (18/12/2025 Gaudium Press ) In a significant early procedural win for religious minorities, India’s Supreme Court has issued notices to the Rajasthan government, seeking its formal response to petitions challenging the constitutionality of the state’s newly enacted Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025. Critics, including the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI), argue that the legislation is unconstitutionally restrictive, invasive, and punitive, granting excessive powers to administrative authorities.
The court has raised pointed constitutional questions about the law, which petitioners contend violates fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Among the challengers are minority groups from Rajasthan, national organizations, and the CBCI, which has joined multiple petitions asserting that the Act infringes on core protections.
Bishop John Carvalho of the Ajmer Diocese in Rajasthan described the legislation as “very stringent.” Speaking to Crux, he emphasized that petitioners are invoking several constitutional articles, including Article 25 (freedom of religion), Article 21 (personal liberty), Article 14 (equality), as well as rights to privacy, autonomy, expression, and property.
“Many innocent people are targeted in the pretext of the law,” Carvalho said, adding that when provisions appear to contravene the Constitution, “legal courts should take up the issue.” He expressed hope for equal treatment under the law, stating, “We pray that everyone be treated equally in the country.”
Central to the bishops’ objections is the law’s broad definition of prohibited conversions, which includes those achieved through “allurement,” “misinformation,” or “any other fraudulent method.” The CBCI warns that these vaguely worded terms could criminalize voluntary religious choices or routine acts of charity, pastoral care, and faith expression, potentially interpreting them as coercion.
Another flashpoint is the mandatory pre-conversion procedure, requiring individuals and religious leaders to submit advance declarations to district authorities. Failure to comply carries heavy fines and imprisonment. Petitioners argue this requirement forces disclosure of intimate personal beliefs to the state, breaching privacy and autonomy.
The law’s reverse burden of proof – shifting responsibility to the accused to demonstrate that a conversion was voluntary – has also drawn sharp criticism for contradicting established principles of criminal justice.
Perhaps most alarming to challengers are provisions allowing officials to confiscate property or demolish structures linked to alleged unlawful conversions without prior judicial findings of guilt. The CBCI contends such measures enable punitive actions based solely on suspicion, undermining due process.
Auxiliary Bishop Dominic Savio of Bombay, a canon lawyer who has been outspoken against similar measures, told Crux that 12 Indian states have either enacted or are considering comparable anti-conversion laws. He stressed that Catholic teaching fully aligns with constitutional values of public order, equality, fraternity, liberty, and genuine secularism.
“The Church supports… [to] heal divisions, promote harmony, and spread altruistic love,” Savio wrote, citing Christ’s mission in Luke 4:18 to “proclaim release to captives… to set at liberty those who are oppressed.”
Savio underscored that the Church categorically rejects forced conversions, declaring them invalid and insisting on “freedom of intention” because “authentic faith can never be coerced.”
In stark terms, he argued that these laws “do not uphold the Constitution, they eviscerate it,” reducing religion “from a matter of conscience to a matter of state permission” and transforming citizens’ religious rights into “a privilege revocable by mob or magistrate.”
While the Supreme Court’s intervention marks an initial victory for the petitioners by compelling the Rajasthan government to justify the law’s provisions, the case is expected to involve prolonged litigation as constitutional questions are thoroughly examined.
The outcome could have far-reaching implications not only for Rajasthan but for similar legislation across multiple states, as religious minorities seek to safeguard freedoms guaranteed under India’s secular framework.
- Raju Hasmukh with files from Crux Now
Related Images:
