The Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly on Thursday, 19 March 2026, passed the Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, one of the most stringent anti-conversion laws in the country. Tabled by Deputy Chief Minister Vijay Sharma, the Bill prescribes life imprisonment for “mass conversions,” defined as the conversion of more than two persons through force or coercion and up to 20 years’ imprisonment in cases involving minors, women, persons with disabilities and members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The legislation also requires voluntary converts to notify the District Magistrate in advance, with their details made publicly available for objections, a provision that has alarmed civil liberties advocates. The ruling BJP passed the Bill amid a walkout by the Opposition Congress, which called for greater judicial and parliamentary scrutiny before the law takes effect.
What the Law Says
The Bill classifies conversions carried out through force, coercion, undue influence, allurement, misrepresentation, fraudulent means or marriage including via digital platforms as criminal offences. All offences under the law are cognisable and non-bailable.
The penalties are tiered and severe. Unlawful conversion can attract seven to ten years in prison and fines starting at ₹5 lakh; this rises to 10 to 20 years and ₹10 lakh if the victim is a minor, a woman or belongs to SC, ST or OBC communities. Mass conversions could attract life imprisonment and fines of ₹25 lakh, with all cases tried in Special Courts.
Notably, the Bill clarifies that a return to one’s ancestral faith will not be counted as a conversion and that healing prayers also fall within its ambit. The Bill justifies the need for updated legislation by stating that given Chhattisgarh’s geographical location, socio-economic conditions and advancements in technology and communication, the provisions of the existing Freedom of Religion Act of 1968 have become inadequate.
Opposition Walkout and the Constitutional Debate
The passage of the Bill was far from smooth. Leader of the Opposition Charandas Mahant argued that similar matters are already before the Supreme Court across 11 states and pressed for the Bill to be sent to a Select Committee, warning against legislating while the apex court is still hearing related cases. He invoked the words of Ambedkar, Vajpayee and the Buddha to stress the importance of unity, tolerance, and social justice.
Mahant also pointed to a significant procedural precedent: a related amendment passed by the Chhattisgarh Assembly in 2006 was returned by the President as recently as December last year, suggesting that hastily drafted legislation may face federal scrutiny once again. Home Minister Vijay Sharma, however, insisted there was no Supreme Court bar preventing states from enacting such laws, defending the Bill as constitutionally sound under Article 25, which empowers states to legislate on public order matters.
When the Chair rejected the Opposition’s demands, Congress legislators staged a walkout. Sharma dismissed the protest, accusing the Opposition of avoiding serious debate and neglecting the concerns of tribal communities. As BJP legislators celebrated the Bill’s passage with chants in the assembly chamber, the deep political divide over the legislation was laid bare for the country to see.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
India is a country where faith is woven into the very fabric of daily life and it is right that no one should be forced, manipulated or defrauded into changing what they believe. In that limited sense, the intent behind the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, is not unreasonable. But intent and impact are two very different things, and this law raises questions that deserve honest answers.
The provision making a person’s decision to convert a matter of public record open to official scrutiny and community objection transforms an intensely personal choice into a bureaucratic and social ordeal. For a woman fleeing an abusive situation, a Dalit seeking dignity in a new faith or a tribal person exercising their constitutional right to conscience, this law could do far more harm than good.
The fact that a similar amendment from this very state was returned by the President just months ago and that the Supreme Court is already examining comparable laws from 11 other states, makes the speed and tone of this passage all the more concerning. Protecting citizens from coercion is a duty of the state.
Also Read: No More ‘Tareekh Pe Tareekh’: Supreme Court Moves to Stop Case Delays
