The Rajasthan Assembly enacted the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Bill, 2025, on September 9, 2025, aiming to curb religious conversions achieved by force, fraud, inducement, or deception. The law prescribes imprisonment from 7 to 14 years and fines up to ₹5 lakh for unlawful conversions, with more severe punishments of 10 to 20 years and fines starting at ₹10 lakh for conversions involving minors, women, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and persons with disabilities.
Mass conversions by coercion or deceit could invite life imprisonment and fines of no less than ₹25 lakh. The bill further mandates advance notice to authorities for voluntary conversions, enables annulment of marriages conducted solely to facilitate conversion, and includes provisions against illegal or foreign funding of conversion activities.
Despite the stated intent to protect social harmony, the legislation faced strong opposition from Congress legislators who warned of misuse and violations of religious freedoms.
New Legal Framework and Provisions
The Bill introduces a detailed legal process to regulate religious conversions in Rajasthan. Individuals intending to convert voluntarily must inform the District Magistrate 60 days in advance, submitting personal and conversion details for public display and scrutiny. After the conversion, they must appear before authorities again for verification that the change was not due to coercion or fraud. Failure to comply can lead to imprisonment of up to three years and fines.
Additionally, marriages conducted solely for religious conversion can be declared void by courts. The law also introduces non-bailable, cognisable offences for unlawful conversion acts, allowing police to arrest without warrants and making bail difficult, reflecting the serious intent of the legislation to deter coercive conversions.
Legal responsibility to prove compliance with the law shifts to those facilitating conversions, reversing the usual presumption of innocence.
Controversies and Opposition Concerns
While the Rajasthan government defends the Bill as a safeguard for vulnerable communities and social peace, critics argue it curtails constitutionally protected freedoms of religion and privacy. Congress leaders and civil society fear the law may be weaponised to harass religious minorities and couples in interfaith marriages.
Notably, the Bill exempts “reconversion” to one’s ancestral religion, a vague term that critics say creates unequal treatment and opens doors to bias, as there is no objective standard to determine ancestral faith. The heightened penalties, public scrutiny of personal religious decisions, and provisions allowing relatives to file complaints raise concerns about intrusion into personal freedoms and the potential for misuse.
The charge often cited by ruling BJP legislators-“love jihad”-is disputed by data, with no cases registered in Rajasthan in recent years under this premise.
Historical Context and Wider State Trends
This law follows similar anti-conversion legislations enacted in various Indian states, reflecting a nationwide political and cultural trend. Rajasthan had proposed bills on unlawful conversions in 2006 and 2008 which had not been enacted, but this 2025 Bill is the most comprehensive and stringent to date in the state.
It emerges amid continued national debates around religious conversions and identity politics. Incidents like controversial mass conversions in Bharatpur in early 2024 have been cited as catalysts.
The Bill aligns with the BJP government’s broader agenda to regulate religious conversions and prevent what it terms “forced” or “fraudulent” conversions, while exempting conversions back to the majority religious faith, raising questions about equality and constitutional neutrality.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Protecting individuals from forceful or fraudulent religious conversions is crucial, but laws must carefully balance this with preserving fundamental rights to freedom of religion, conscience, and privacy. The Rajasthan Bill’s broad definitions, invasive procedures, and unequal treatment toward different faiths risk deepening communal divides and undermining social cohesion.
Legal mechanisms should deter coercion without criminalising faith-based choices or inter-community relationships. Society thrives on empathy, dialogue, and respect for diverse beliefs, not suspicion or surveillance.
