The Maharashtra government has notified August 28, 2026, as the date on which the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, will come into force, giving the state a statutory framework to regulate and punish what it defines as “unlawful conversion”.
The Home Department issued the latest commencement notification on August 17 under Section 1(2) of the Act, which empowers the state government to specify the date of enforcement through the Official Gazette.
The legislation, introduced by the Devendra Fadnavis government during the March Budget Session and subsequently cleared by both Houses and President Droupadi Murmu, prohibits conversions allegedly carried out through force, coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, threat, undue influence, allurement or fraudulent means. It also covers certain marriage-linked conversions.
The law requires a person intending to change religion to give 60 days’ prior notice to the competent authority and submit a declaration within 21 days after conversion. It allows complaints by the convert’s parents, siblings and certain relatives, makes offences cognisable and non-bailable, and places the burden of establishing that a conversion was lawful on the person who conducted or assisted it.
The government has defended the legislation as a measure against forced and fraudulent conversions, with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis maintaining that it is not aimed at voluntary conversions or interfaith marriages.
Minister of State for Home Pankaj Bhoyar similarly said the objective was to ensure conversions take place voluntarily and transparently. However, opposition parties, civil-rights groups and Christian leaders have raised concerns over privacy, personal liberty, possible misuse and the impact of the law on interfaith relationships and religious choice.
What The New Law Changes
At the heart of the legislation is a distinction between voluntary religious conversion and what the government calls “unlawful conversion”. The Act prohibits attempts to convert a person through force, coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, threat, undue influence, allurement or other fraudulent means.
Its definition of “allurement” is notably broad: it includes gifts or material benefits, money, employment, free education in an institution run by a religious body, a promise to marry, the offer of a better lifestyle and claims of divine healing.
The law also includes portraying the practices or rituals of one religion negatively in comparison with another within its definition of allurement. The government has argued that these provisions are necessary to protect vulnerable people from organised or deceptive conversion practices.
During the Assembly debate, Minister of State for Home Pankaj Bhoyar said the legislation was intended to ensure that conversions happen “voluntarily and in a transparent manner”, stressing that the 60-day notice requirement was meant to establish that a conversion was based on free will rather than fraud, force or inducement.
The law introduces a formal process even for a person who intends to convert voluntarily. Under Section 6, the individual must provide 60 days’ advance notice to the District Magistrate or another authorised competent authority.
A person or institution organising the conversion ceremony is also required to provide notice. The proposed conversion can then be publicly displayed, allowing objections to be submitted within 30 days. Where objections are received, or where the competent authority considers it necessary, a police inquiry can examine the intention, purpose or cause of the proposed conversion.
After the conversion, the person who changed religion and the person or institution that organised it have to submit a declaration within 21 days. The declaration contains details including the person’s identity, address, previous and new religion, date and place of conversion and the manner in which the conversion was carried out. Failure to comply with the prescribed post-conversion procedure can have consequences for the validity of the conversion under the Act.
The legislation also changes how alleged unlawful conversions can enter the criminal justice system. A complaint can be made not only by the alleged victim but also by the person’s parents, siblings and certain relatives connected through blood, marriage or adoption. Police can also take suo motu cognisance of an alleged violation.
The offences under the Act are cognisable and non-bailable and are to be tried by a Court of Sessions. The law further places the burden of proving that the conversion was not unlawful on the person who caused the conversion and those who aided or abetted it.
This provision is among those that critics say could have significant consequences for due process because a person accused of facilitating a conversion may have to establish that the process was lawful.
From March Bill To August Rollout
The legislation’s journey began during the Maharashtra Assembly’s Budget Session in March. The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, was introduced in the Assembly on March 13 and passed by the House on March 16. The Legislative Council cleared it on March 17.
The Bill subsequently went through the Governor and was reserved for presidential consideration, with President Droupadi Murmu giving her assent on July 31. The President’s approval cleared the constitutional procedure required before the state could bring the law into operation. Section 1(2), however, expressly provided that the Act would come into force only on a date appointed by the state government through an Official Gazette notification.
The latest notification fixes that date as August 28. The development is significant because there had been conflicting reports around the Act’s operational status earlier in August. Some reports published after the legislation was gazetted on July 30 described the law as already in force, while the latest commencement notification reported by The Economic Times now identifies August 28 as the date appointed by the state under Section 1(2). The distinction matters because the Act itself makes the government’s commencement notification the legal trigger for its operation.
The confusion has also surfaced in police action. A recent Pune case saw police invoke provisions of the new Act before its stated commencement date, prompting senior officials to acknowledge a procedural error. The episode has highlighted the importance of the notified commencement date and the need for police authorities to distinguish between legislation that has received assent and legislation whose operative provisions have formally come into force.
The government has consistently defended the legislation as a safeguard against coercive or fraudulent religious conversion rather than a restriction on genuine changes of faith. Fadnavis has said the law is not directed against any particular religion and is not intended to prohibit voluntary conversion or interfaith marriage. Bhoyar, while responding to concerns over the mandatory notice system, said the objective was to verify that conversion was taking place through free will and not through fraud, force or inducement.
Punishments And Marriage Provisions
The Act prescribes different punishments depending on the circumstances of an alleged unlawful conversion. Conversion through prohibited means can attract imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine of ₹1 lakh. Where the alleged victim is a minor, a person of unsound mind, a woman or a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the punishment can extend to seven years with a fine of up to ₹5 lakh.
Mass conversion is also punishable with up to seven years’ imprisonment and a ₹5 lakh fine. Repeat offenders face enhanced punishment, with the Act providing for imprisonment of up to 10 years and a fine that can extend to ₹7 lakh.
The legislation also contains provisions concerning institutions and organisations. Where an organisation is found to have violated the Act, its registration can be cancelled, and the government can withhold financial assistance or grants. People responsible for the organisation can also face criminal proceedings.
These provisions potentially extend the impact of the law beyond individuals accused of facilitating conversion to religious or charitable institutions that are alleged to have participated in unlawful activity.
Marriage is another important part of the legislation. The Act prohibits conversion linked to marriage, a relationship in the nature of marriage or a promise of marriage where the conversion involves force, coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, threat, undue influence, allurement or other prohibited means.
A marriage solemnised with the sole purpose of unlawful conversion can be declared null and void by a court. Importantly, the government’s stated position is that the Act does not criminalise interfaith marriage or voluntary conversion by itself; the prohibition applies where the circumstances specified in the legislation are established.
The law also provides for children and victims in cases covered by its marriage and conversion provisions. It sets out provisions relating to maintenance, custody and succession rights for children and provides for rehabilitation support for victims of unlawful conversion. The extent and manner of rehabilitation will depend on rules framed for implementing the legislation.
Critics Warn Of Misuse
The government’s position has been challenged by opposition parties and civil-society groups, who argue that the law could intrude into private decisions about faith, relationships and personal identity. Congress, the NCP (Sharadchandra Pawar), the Samajwadi Party and CPI(M) opposed the legislation during its passage, while Shiv Sena (UBT) supported it.
Opposition members had questioned the constitutionality of the legislation, particularly its implications for privacy and personal liberty, and had sought greater scrutiny of the Bill. Christian leaders have also strongly criticised the legislation. The Western Region Bishops’ Council, representing bishops in Maharashtra, said the law could undermine the constitutional freedom to choose and profess one’s religion.
In its March statement, the Council specifically objected to the 60-day prior-notice requirement, police inquiries into the “intention, purpose, or cause” of a proposed conversion and the shifting of the burden of proof.
It called for the law to be withdrawn or substantially revised, arguing that its broad language could lead to harassment and disproportionately affect minority communities. Citizens for Justice and Peace has similarly argued that the legislation risks placing individual autonomy and private choices under excessive state scrutiny.
The organisation has raised concerns over the advance-notice mechanism, third-party complaints, the burden of proof and the potential impact on interfaith relationships. It has also pointed to the wider constitutional debate surrounding similar anti-conversion laws in other states, several of which have been challenged before the Supreme Court.
The constitutional question is therefore likely to remain central to the implementation of the Maharashtra law. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limitations.
The Maharashtra government’s position is that this protection cannot extend to forcibly converting another person. Critics, however, argue that the state must be careful not to turn safeguards against coercion into mechanisms that interfere with voluntary religious choice, privacy or the right of adults to decide whom they marry and what faith they follow.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act raises an important question that goes beyond the political debate around “anti-conversion” laws: how can the state protect people from coercion and fraud without making a private matter of conscience subject to unnecessary surveillance? Preventing forced conversion, deception and exploitation is a legitimate public interest, and no person should be pressured into changing their faith through threats, fraud or material coercion.
At the same time, religious belief is deeply personal, and India’s constitutional framework protects an individual’s freedom of conscience. The challenge for Maharashtra will be ensuring that the law is applied against demonstrable coercion or fraud rather than becoming a tool for harassment, communal suspicion or interference in consensual adult relationships. The government’s assurances that voluntary conversion and interfaith marriage are not the target must therefore be reflected in policing and enforcement on the ground.
Also read: AAP Leader Satyendar Jain Arrested Over Alleged Delhi Jal Board Tender Irregularities
