Freedom of Religion in the Indian Constitution and Issues of Conversion

The freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution of India is one of the most important pillars of its secular democratic framework. It ensures that every individual has the right to profess, practise, and propagate a religion of their choice without interference from the state. This constitutional commitment reflects India’s long-standing tradition of religious tolerance and pluralism. However, the exercise of this freedom has often led to debates and controversies, particularly concerning religious conversions, which remain a sensitive socio-political issue in contemporary India.

Constitutional Provisions on Freedom of Religion

The right to freedom of religion is enshrined in Articles 25 to 28 of the Indian Constitution, forming part of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to all citizens. These provisions collectively secure both individual freedom of conscience and collective rights of religious denominations.
Article 25 – Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice and Propagation of Religion

• Guarantees to every person the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion.
• This right, however, is subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
• It also allows the state to regulate or restrict secular activities associated with religious practice and to implement social welfare and reform measures.

Article 26 – Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs

• Grants every religious denomination or organisation the right to:
  • Establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.
  • Manage its own affairs in matters of religion.
  • Own and acquire movable and immovable property.
  • Administer such property in accordance with the law.

Article 27 – Freedom from Taxation for Promotion of Religion

• Prohibits the state from compelling any person to pay taxes for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.

Article 28 – Freedom as to Attendance at Religious Instruction or Worship in Educational Institutions

• Ensures that no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds.
• However, institutions administered by religious bodies but receiving state aid may impart religious instruction with voluntary participation.

Together, these provisions reflect the secular character of the Indian state—neither promoting nor discouraging any religion but ensuring equal respect and protection for all faiths.

Judicial Interpretation and Scope

Indian courts have played a crucial role in defining the scope of religious freedom. Through several landmark judgments, the judiciary has interpreted these provisions to balance individual liberty with public order and social reform.

• In The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954), popularly known as the Shirur Mutt case, the Supreme Court held that religious freedom includes both belief and practice, and that the state cannot interfere in essential religious functions.
• In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Court ruled that the right to “propagate” religion does not include the right to convert another person by force, fraud, or inducement.
• The Court has consistently maintained that the state can regulate secular aspects of religion and protect individuals from coercive conversion practices while upholding voluntary religious choice.

Concept of Secularism and Religious Freedom

The Indian model of secularism differs from the Western notion of strict separation between religion and state. It adopts a principle of equal respect and non-discrimination, ensuring that the state treats all religions equally without favouring or opposing any.
Secularism, recognised as a basic feature of the Constitution, aims to maintain:

• Freedom of faith for individuals.
• Equality of all religions before the law.
• Autonomy of religious institutions within constitutional limits.

This framework allows religion to coexist with democratic governance while safeguarding minority rights and cultural diversity.

Issues of Religious Conversion

Religious conversion—the act of adopting a new faith—has been one of the most contentious aspects of religious freedom in India. The right to propagate one’s religion under Article 25 is often seen as encompassing the right to persuade others, but not to coerce or induce conversion. The debates surrounding conversion typically centre on three major issues:
1. Voluntary vs. Induced Conversion

• Voluntary conversions based on personal belief or conviction are constitutionally protected as expressions of freedom of conscience.
• Induced conversions, involving force, fraud, or material inducement, are widely condemned and restricted by law.

2. Anti-Conversion Laws

• Several Indian states have enacted Freedom of Religion Acts, popularly known as anti-conversion laws, to prevent conversions deemed coercive or deceitful.
• States such as Odisha (1967), Madhya Pradesh (1968), Arunachal Pradesh (1978), Gujarat (2003), Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, and Himachal Pradesh have such laws.
• These laws generally require prior permission or post-reporting to authorities for religious conversion ceremonies and impose penalties for forced or fraudulent conversions.
• Supporters argue that these laws protect vulnerable communities from exploitation, while critics view them as restrictions on religious freedom and instruments of political control.

3. Social and Political Dimensions

• Conversion has often been linked with issues of caste, tribal identity, and social mobility. Many Dalits and marginalised groups have historically converted to other religions, such as Buddhism or Christianity, to escape caste-based discrimination.
• Political controversies arise when conversions are perceived as attempts to alter community demographics, leading to tension between religious groups.
• Movements like “Ghar Wapsi” (Homecoming), aimed at reconverting individuals to Hinduism, have further fuelled debates on the voluntary nature of religious change.

Balancing Rights and Regulation

The constitutional challenge lies in maintaining a delicate balance between freedom of religion and public order. The state’s role is to prevent coercion or exploitation without infringing on an individual’s right to choose their faith.
Courts have generally upheld the validity of anti-conversion laws, provided they target only involuntary conversions and do not restrict genuine expressions of belief. The judiciary continues to stress that:

• The freedom to change religion is part of personal autonomy and conscience.
• The state can intervene only when conversion involves deceit, coercion, or unlawful inducement.
• Pluralism and tolerance form the foundation of Indian secularism, and any restriction must be narrowly tailored.

Contemporary Concerns

In recent years, religious conversions have remained a politically sensitive issue, often linked to identity politics and communal tensions. Legislative measures such as “love jihad” laws in some states, which regulate interfaith marriages and alleged conversions through marriage, have reignited debate about the scope of Article 25.
Critics argue that such measures violate individual liberty and privacy, while supporters claim they are necessary to curb exploitation. The debate continues to test India’s constitutional promise of freedom of conscience against the state’s responsibility to maintain social harmony.

Significance and Way Forward

Freedom of religion in India embodies the spirit of inclusiveness and respect for diversity that has characterised the nation’s civilisation for centuries. However, its full realisation requires:

• Ensuring genuine religious choice free from coercion or political influence.
• Promoting interfaith dialogue and social reform to address structural inequalities that drive conversions.
• Strengthening legal safeguards to protect both freedom of conscience and communal harmony.
• Encouraging education and awareness to counter misinformation and intolerance.