Rajasthan’s anti-conversion Act against ‘love jihad’ — when the state registers none

The recently passed Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025, is being hailed by the BJP government as a step to curb the alleged ‘demographic imbalance’ in the state and cases of ‘love jihad’ — but it seems to have as many discrepancies and contradictions as these hypotheses have holes.

The state government, in an answer to BJP’s own MLA Phool Singh Meena, has agreed that no case of ‘love jihad’ was ever been registered in the state, in fact. In the past five years, the home department confessed, only 13 cases of illegal conversions were recorded in Rajasthan, according to another BJP MLA, Lalit Meena.

Significantly, when the Bill was tabled in the house, BJP MLA Gopal Sharma had justified it by stating that ‘love jihad’ was rampant in the state.

Key features

• The Bill prohibits religious conversions ‘by force, coercion, misrepresentation, undue influence, allurement, marriage, or any fraudulent means’ — with ‘undue influence’ and ‘allurement’ left open to interpretation.

• In addition, any person undergoing a conversion and the ‘converter’ facilitating their avowal of a different religion must make declarations before the local district magistrate. The DM will then conduct an inquiry and invite objections before it is allowed. Details of the circumstances of the conversion and personal details of the person converting will be put on public notice (in this case, the country has little concern for the violation of such a person’s right to privacy, because who would feel unsafe over such scrutiny?).

• Persons who can lodge an FIR against a ‘forced’ conversion include the victim themselves, as well as their parents, brother, sister, or indeed, anyone related by blood, marriage or by adoption.  

• Conversion back to a person’s previous religion will not be considered as ‘conversion’ at all — but does this provision not violate the Right to Equality or the Right to Freedom of Religion if all conversion is not at par?

• Several procedures related to the conversion process lack clarity. These include the: (i) inquiry process and time period it may occupy, (ii) the action to be taken by the DM in case they deem there is a violation and (iii) what sort of appeal mechanism may exist against the DM’s ruling.

A short history of anti-conversion efforts by the BJP

The Rajasthan legislative assembly had tried to pass laws regulating religious conversion in 2006 and 2008; however, these did not receive assent.

Finally, the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025, was introduced in the assembly in February 2025. And it follows a certain pattern:

In the 1960s, Odisha and Madhya Pradesh passed laws to prohibit religious conversion through force, fraud or inducement.

These laws were challenged before the courts on two grounds: (i) that the state legislature did not have legislative competence per this, as the law regulates religion, which is a subject under the Union List, and that (ii) they violated the fundamental right to propagate religion.

The Supreme Court in 1977 upheld these laws, however, stating that they regulate public order by prohibiting forced conversions. Now, ‘public order’ is a subject under the state list. Also, these laws do not regulate religion itself, the Court deemed, for (it stated) the right to convert is not part of the right to propagate a religion — which, the apex court read, only offers the freedom to spread one’s religion by explaining its principles. 

Article 14 and its collision with conversion regulation

The new 2025 Bill, now, regulates religious conversions and bans forced religious conversions — but does not regard re-conversion to the immediately previous religion as ‘conversion’ at all. Here arises the question about the right to equality before the law.

The Supreme Court has in 1950 held that while Article 14 of the Constitution requires equal treatment for all persons, it allows for differential treatment for unequal classes of persons. Such treatment is allowed when the following three conditions are met: (i) the classes are clearly distinguishable from each other, (ii) there is a legitimate objective, and (iii) such classification meets the objective.

The question, then, is whether the differential treatment of conversion and re-conversion to the immediate previous religion meets the standards of Article 14. Both the instances of conversion and re-conversion involve change in religion of an individual. However, the Bill suggests conversion may be due to force or allurement — and seems to elide the possibility that re-conversion may also be due to force. 

Will this be challenged in the courts?

Scrutiny vs the right to privacy — and matters of expediency

Under the new Rajasthan anti-conversion Bill, a person undergoing conversion must send a declaration to the DM afterwards. This declaration will be displayed on the noticeboard of the DM’s office along with personal details such as father’s name, current residential address and date of birth. Requiring a public display of religious conversions along with personal details — such as family members who may be open to intimidation or the person’s own place of residence where they may be accosted — would seem to violate the right to privacy, and worse, inveigh against safety and protection in the eyes of the law and in terms of the right to freedom of religion, critics argue.

But then, privacy has been a double-edged tool of selective application for a while now.

The Bill also requires the DM to conduct an inquiry after he receives the pre-conversion declarations from the converting person and the religion convertor. This inquiry is conducted with the support of police to confirm the real intention of the conversion.

However, the procedure of the inquiry is unclear. The Bill also does not specify the number of days within which such an inquiry must be completed. This allows, again, room for intimidation — and indefinite delays.

Nor does the Bill define what the DM or the police must do after determining said ‘real intention’ behind the conversion.  

Post conversion, the DM must display a copy of the declaration of conversion on the notice board. If the DM receives any objection on this public notice, he must record the nature and particulars of the objection. 

However, the Bill does not clarify when the conversion becomes final in case there are in fact no objections. Nothing binds the DM to close the case, and the person seems to be left hanging in limbo indefinitely, awaiting the unknown time when some conscientious objector might appear.

Conversion denied — but not because of any fault of the converted or ‘converter’?

According to the Bill, the DM is responsible for monitoring religious conversion in a district. The DM receives a declaration, conducts an inquiry with the help of police, puts up a public notice of the conversion and records the objections received — this is the role.

However, even if the ‘converter’ and converted are shown to be at no fault, a failure on the part of the DM to put up a public notice of the conversion could also render the conversion illegal and void!

And the Bill does not provide any mechanism of appeal or objection that an aggrieved individual may bring to bear against the DM’s office or the investigating police officers. 

There is also an issue of delimitation of responsibility that makes it likely for the matter to fall between stools in certain cases.

The Bill requires the DM to conduct both pre-conversion and post-conversion procedures. An individual intending to convert from one religion to another must make a declaration before the conversion to the DM of the district they currently reside in. The ‘converter’ facilitating this event must also give advance notice to the DM of the district where the conversion will actually occur. It is only after receiving both these declarations that the DM must conduct an inquiry, with the help of the local police.

But what of instances where the conversion happens in one district while the converted individual resides in a different one? Or what if the person moves soon after or just before conversion? Now, the situation involves at least two DMs — and it is unclear which district is responsible for conducting the inquiry.

Safeguards surrounding conversion — and absence thereof

The Bill pushes the burden of proof that all is well and above board on to the converter, largely — as the person who has ostensibly ‘caused’ the conversion to take place. This ‘accused’ must prove that the religious conversion was not influenced by force, misrepresentation, coercion, allurement, marriage or any fraudulent means. 

However, the Bill does not specify such safeguards in the case of a reversal. This may be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which calls for all laws or procedures to be fair and reasonable.

The Bill also defines different punishments for the unlawful religious conversion of a minor, a woman and individuals from SC/ST communities.  In the Bill, the term of imprisonment and the fine charged for conversion of these groups is nearly doubled compared to legal male adults of the general category.

Now, while minors are legally dependent on their guardians and require higher protections, the question of what grounds call for such added protection for women and individuals from SC/ST communities has gone begging.    

The Bill also specifies a minimum amount of fine for offences against itself. However, it does not specify any upper limit on the amount of fine...  Could this not lead to disproportionate penalties being imposed? And who is to determine if this is so — the courts?

The Bill also states that the court may also direct ‘additional’ compensations in case of a violation — but it does not mention the grounds on which such additional compensations may be charged.

Challenges to its position

Congress MLA Rafique Khan has simply dismissed the intent of the Bill as the BJP government wanting to create fissures in society by plotting measures that can be misused against minorities — even when no attempt at legal conversion is being done.

Meanwhile, civil society groups have highlighted the potential for infringement on fundamental rights, including freedom of religion and  privacy , and also dubbed the exemption to reconversion to Hinduism (though not explicitly stated, easily the most numerous case) “discriminatory — and politically motivated”.

But who, if anyone, will bell the cat? And will it be dismissed with a judicial rap on the paw — or actually put out by the neck perhaps by a fair-minded electorate? (The last might be too optimistic a vision for New India, but the idealist can dream...)