GS Paper: GS1-10.Social empowerment, communalism, regionalism & secularism.

Why in the News?

Recently the arrest of two Catholic nuns in Chhattisgarh on charges of human trafficking and forced religious conversion has sparked widespread political and religious backlash.

Why are anti-conversion laws controversial in tribal regions?

• Misuse Against Voluntary Conversions: These laws, intended to curb conversions through force or fraud, are often misused to harass tribal Christians and missionaries involved in voluntary and lawful religious activities. Eg: In Chhattisgarh, two Catholic nuns were arrested for alleged forced conversion, despite the tribal girls and their families confirming it was voluntary.
• Targeting of Minority Rights: Anti-conversion laws disproportionately affect Christian and Muslim minorities, leading to surveillance, fear, and restricted religious freedom, especially among tribal converts. Eg: Several tribal states like Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Odisha have used these laws to criminalise conversions, even when done without coercion.
• Threat of Delisting ST Converts: There is a growing debate on removing Scheduled Tribe status from tribals who convert to Christianity, threatening their constitutional safeguards and entitlements. Eg: In Chhattisgarh, such debates have intensified, questioning the identity and rights of Christian Adivasis.

What constitutional rights to religious freedom are being undermined?

• Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25): Citizens have the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate any religion. This is undermined when voluntary conversions are falsely labelled as forced or illegal, especially among tribals and minorities.
• Right to Personal Liberty (Article 21): The right to make autonomous choices—including choosing one’s religion—is a part of personal liberty. Anti-conversion laws infringe on this by criminalizing voluntary decisions, often without evidence of coercion.
• Equality Before Law (Article 14): These laws are selectively enforced against Christians and Muslims, leading to discriminatory treatment. This violates the principle of equality and non-discrimination, a core part of India’s secular constitutional framework.

What are the actual conversions happened in India?

• Mass Dalit Conversions to Buddhism (1956 and after): Led by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, over 5 lakh Dalits converted to Buddhism in 1956 to escape caste-based oppression and reclaim dignity. Eg: Ambedkar’s historic mass conversion in Nagpur triggered a broader movement of religious shift rooted in social reform.
• Christian Conversions in Tribal Regions: In states like Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha, many tribal communities have converted to Christianity, often due to access to education, healthcare, and social support from missionaries. Eg: The Kandhamal district in Odisha has seen a significant rise in Christian population over decades, leading to communal tensions.
• ‘Ghar Wapsi’ or Reconversion to Hinduism: Organised by Hindu groups like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), ‘Ghar Wapsi’ aims to reconvert people who earlier embraced other faiths back to Hinduism. Eg: In Uttar Pradesh (2014), VHP claimed hundreds of Muslims and Christians were brought back to Hinduism through Ghar Wapsi drives, raising ethical and legal concerns.

Do Conversions Impact Indian Society Negatively?

• Social Polarisation and Communal Tensions: Conversions whether into or out of a religion often become flashpoints for communal conflict, especially when framed as threats to majority identity. This can disrupt social harmony and lead to violence, as seen in Kandhamal (Odisha, 2008) and other conflict-prone areas.
• Political Exploitation and Fear-Mongering: Conversion is frequently politicised, used to mobilise vote banks or target minority communities, which undermines democratic values and diverts focus from genuine socio-economic development.
• Distrust and Fragmentation in Local Communities: Conversions may sometimes lead to social alienation or loss of community ties, especially in tightly-knit rural or tribal areas, where religious identity is deeply linked with cultural belonging.

Way forward: 

• Strengthen Constitutional Safeguards: Ensure that anti-conversion laws align with Articles 25-28 of the Constitution by protecting voluntary religious choicewhile penalizing only coercive or fraudulent practices.
• Promote Interfaith Dialogue and Tribal Autonomy: Encourage community-level engagement and interfaith dialogue, and recognize tribal cultural rights including support for demands like the Sarna religious code to prevent polarization and protect indigenous identities.

Mains PYQ:

[UPSC 2024] Intercaste marriages between castes which have socio-economic parity have increased, to some extent, but this is less true of interreligious marriages. Discuss.

Linkage: The arrest of the nuns and the subsequent clarification by the girls’ kin that there was “no forceful conversion” directly touches upon the sensitive issue of interreligious interactions and alleged conversions, which anti-conversion laws are often used to criminalize, especially in the context of interfaith marriages.

Why in the News?

Recently, the bill was introduced in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly to prevent “unlawful” religious conversions.

What are the Draft Provisions under the Bill?

• Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion – The Bill bans religious conversions through misrepresentation, force, coercion, allurement, fraud, or marriage.
• Declaration & Inquiry for Voluntary Conversion – Individuals must submit a declaration to the District Magistrate (DM) 60 days in advance, with authorities conducting an inquiry to verify the intent.
• Burden of Proof & FIR Filing – The person facilitating the conversion must prove it was voluntary, and an FIR can be filed by the affected individual or close relatives.
• Punishments & Penalties – General unlawful conversion leads to 1-5 years of imprisonment, increasing to 2-10 years for minors, women, or SC/ST individuals; mass conversions attract 3-10 years in jail.
• Legal Consequences & Compensation – Marriages done solely for unlawful conversion are invalid, the offense is non-bailable, and courts may award compensation up to ₹5 lakh to victims.

What about those wanting to convert voluntarily?

• Those wanting to convert voluntarily would undergo a detailed process. A prescribed declaration form must be filled out and submitted to the District Magistrate (DM) or the relevant authority 60 days in advance and violations invite up to three years’ punishment and a minimum fine of Rs 10,000. 
• The person performing the conversion ceremony would give a month’s advance notice to the DM via a prescribed form, and violating this would invite up to five years’ imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rs 25,000. An officer not below the rank of Additional DM will conduct a police inquiry regarding the real intention, purpose, and cause of the proposed religious conversion.
• The converted person must send a declaration in a prescribed form within 60 days of conversion to the DM, including details such as date of birth, address, and religion before and after conversion. The convert has to appear before the DM within 21 days from the date of filing the declaration to establish their identity and confirm the contents of the declaration.

Were attempts made to pass such a Bill earlier?

• 2006: BJP-led government under Vasundhara Raje introduced the Rajasthan Freedom of Religion Bill, 2006, to curb “forced” conversions.
• 2008: Amended version required prior approval from the District Collector but was stuck with the Centre.
• 2013-2018: Raje’s second tenure saw efforts to revive the 2008 Bill, but the Centre rejected it in 2017, citing deviation from national policy.
• 2017: Rajasthan High Court issued guidelines to prevent forced conversions in the absence of a law.
• 2025: The current Bill is seen as a successor to these previous attempts and is expected to pass in the budget session.

What would be the impact on Fundamental Rights?

• Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25) – Every individual has the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. However, the Bill imposes state scrutiny on religious conversions, which may be seen as a restriction on this right.
• Right to Privacy (Article 21) – The requirement of mandatory declaration to the District Magistrate and police inquiry into personal religious choices could infringe upon the right to privacy, recognized as a fundamental right in the Puttaswamy judgment (2017).
• Burden of Proof Issue – Placing the burden of proof on the person facilitating the conversion contradicts the legal principle of “innocent until proven guilty”, potentially violating Article 14 (Right to Equality).
• Criminalization and Fear – The stringent punishments and criminalization of conversion through marriage might discourage individuals from exercising their right to choose their faith or marry interfaith partners, potentially violating their personal liberty (Article 21).

Way forward: 

• Ensure Constitutional Safeguards – Amend the Bill to align with Article 25 by distinguishing forced conversions from voluntary ones, reducing state overreach in personal religious choices, and upholding the right to privacy (Article 21).
• Fair Implementation & Oversight – Establish independent judicial review for conversion inquiries to prevent misuse, ensure burden of proof remains balanced, and introduce strict safeguards against harassment of individuals exercising their religious freedom.

Mains PYQ:

Q Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy.(UPSC IAS/2017)

Why in the News?

The petition in Sambhal is like those filed for Varanasi’s Gyanvapi Mosque and Mathura’s Shahi Idgah. The main issue is how the law – ‘Places of Worship Act, 1991’, is understood.

What Does the Law Say About the Petitioners’ Claim?

• Civil Suit Framework: The petitioners filed a civil suit seeking to establish their claim over the mosque site. In civil suits, initial claims are generally accepted at face value (prima facie), allowing for further evidence to be presented later if the suit is deemed maintainable.
• Challenges Under Places of Worship Act: However, any claim that seeks to alter the religious character of a place of worship is barred under the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
  • This Act aims to maintain the status quo of religious sites as they existed on August 15, 1947.

How have Courts allowed these Title Suits?

• Judicial Interpretations: Despite the provisions of the Places of Worship Act, courts have allowed title suits related to places like Gyanvapi and Mathura by ruling them maintainable. This has occurred even while constitutional challenges to the Act are pending before higher courts.
• Supreme Court Observations: A significant observation by the Supreme Court indicated that while changing a place’s religious nature is prohibited under the Act, inquiries into its historical character may still be permissible. This interpretation has provided grounds for district courts to entertain such petitions without directly contravening the Act’s intent.
• Sambhal Case Specifics: In Sambhal’s case, the court ordered a survey before determining whether the civil suit was maintainable. This ex-parte decision (made without hearing both sides) has led to further disputes regarding its legality and fairness.

Way forward: 

• Strict Adherence to the Places of Worship Act: Courts must uphold the intent of the 1991 Act by ensuring that disputes challenging the religious character of sites as of August 15, 1947, are dismissed, avoiding unnecessary surveys or actions that could inflame communal tensions.
• Fostering Interfaith Dialogue: Governments and local authorities should facilitate interfaith discussions to address historical grievances peacefully and promote mutual understanding, reducing the risk of violent clashes and fostering communal harmony.

Mains PYQ:

[2019] What are the challenges to our cultural practices in the name of Secularism?