The Bombay High Court is set to examine a petition that questions the constitutional legitimacy of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026. Filed by renowned Islamic scholar Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan, the petition argues that the new law encroaches upon fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
In the legal document, the petitioner contends that while the prevention of coerced or fraudulent marriages is reasonable, the law overreaches by permitting state oversight of consensual interfaith relationships and voluntary religious conversions. The plea emphasizes that personal decisions about one’s life partner and faith are integral to individual autonomy, dignity, and privacy, which are safeguarded under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution.
Among the contentious provisions is Section 9(2), which prescribes harsher penalties for those converting women, deemed discriminatory by the petitioner. Additionally, Section 2(a) is criticized for its vague definition of “allurement,” using terms like “better lifestyle” and “divine healing,” which could unjustly restrict legitimate religious activities and expressions.
The petition warns that the Act’s threat of criminal charges, mandatory personal disclosures, and public scrutiny could deter individuals and organizations from engaging in lawful religious teaching and humanitarian efforts. Moreover, the law’s requirement for a 60-day notice period before a religious conversion is argued to violate privacy by exposing individual faith decisions to public and state examination.
The plea asserts that any state inquiry should focus strictly on whether a person’s choice to convert was made freely and voluntarily, without probing into the individual’s beliefs or motivations. The petitioner also challenges Section 13, which places the burden of proof on the accused, arguing that it undermines procedural fairness and the presumption of innocence.
More Read
Advocate Mateen Shaikh filed the petition, urging the court to declare the law unconstitutional or to interpret its provisions narrowly to apply only in cases involving actual coercion or fraud.
Notably, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently dismissed a similar petition due to vague pleadings, although it allowed for the filing of a new petition after comprehensive research. This previous petition had challenged the Act following its official notification on July 30.
