Supreme Court protects individual autonomy in religion, dismantles UP anti-conversion Act

By Syed Ali Mujtaba* 

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to choose a religion is a purely personal matter, and the state cannot interfere with it, as doing so violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The court was hearing the Uttar Pradesh government’s Anti-Conversion Law (2025) and raised constitutional objections to several provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. It observed that the requirement to publicize the personal details of individuals who convert could infringe upon their right to privacy, which is closely linked to the freedom of religion under Article 25.

A Bench led by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman reaffirmed that every individual has the constitutional right to profess, practice, and propagate their religion. The bench criticized the “very, very harmful” kind of public interest litigations alleging mass conversions “by hook or by crook,” and quashed the PIL, stating that Article 25 grants every individual the right to freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate the religion of their choice.

“Every individual has the right to choose a belief and to profess it or not. This provision ensures complete autonomy to an individual, free from state interference,” the bench said.

Justice Nariman further noted, “Conversion is a purely personal thought process of an Indian citizen. The right to convert is akin to an individual’s right to choose their spouse. The right of two consenting adults to marry, regardless of religion, caste, or community, is a constitutional right enshrined in the Special Marriage Act of 1955, which state governments cannot undo.”

The judgment emphasized that the rights to life and conscience under Article 21 are deeply interrelated with Article 25 and remain beyond the control of state governments.

This ruling assumes particular importance as several BJP-ruled states have enacted anti-conversion laws, arguing that inter-religious marriages and conversions are attempts to convert Hindus to Islam. However, these states have failed to provide data to substantiate their claims. There is little evidence to show the number of alleged “love jihad” or forced conversion cases, while several reports document the persecution of Muslims under such stringent laws.

Legal experts point out that existing provisions under the Indian Penal Code already address forced or fraudulent conversions and sham marriages. Instead of fostering communal harmony, education, and employment, such laws risk deepening social divides.

Critics argue that these laws serve a political agenda aimed at targeting the Muslim minority while also policing the Hindu community to prevent interfaith relationships. Such measures amount to an infringement on the fundamental right to individual choice.

Indian jurisprudence has consistently upheld the right to choose one’s religion as a fundamental right under Article 25. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that personal autonomy over faith must be respected, provided the conversion is not induced by fraud, force, or allurement.

Notable judgments include Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. (2018)—the “Hadiya case”—where the court held that an adult’s choice of faith and partner falls within the ambit of personal liberty under Article 21. In 2021, a Bench led by Justice Nariman dismissed a PIL against religious conversion, affirming that the right to choose a religion is part of the fundamental right to privacy. Similarly, the Delhi High Court (2022) observed that religious conversion is lawful unless it is forced, reiterating that Article 25 guarantees every individual the freedom to choose and profess any religion.

The debate over “propagation” versus “conversion” has its roots in the 1977 case of Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the Supreme Court ruled that the right to “propagate” one’s religion does not extend to converting another person by force, fraud, or inducement. While propagation involves sharing one’s beliefs, conversion without consent does not enjoy constitutional protection.

As the legal community revisits these issues, it must seek a balance between protecting individuals from coercion and upholding their right to privacy, conscience, and faith.

The duty of a welfare state is to foster peace and harmony, not to police individual freedoms or dictate personal belief. As the Supreme Court continues to address petitions challenging anti-conversion laws, the broader constitutional question remains—how to reconcile the state’s concerns with the individual’s inviolable right to choose.

—

*Journalist based in Chennai