Rajasthan’s Anti-Conversion Bill and the Indian Model of Secularism
Context: The passage of Rajasthan’s Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025 highlights the ongoing debate between safeguarding individual freedom of religion and ensuring public order.
What are the tenets of the Indian model of secularism?
- Principled Distance: Indian secularism does not imply strict separation between State and religion, but rather contextual engagement.
- Positive role of the State: It can intervene to reform discriminatory practices (e.g., abolition of untouchability under Article 17).
- Equal respect for all religions (Sarva Dharma Sambhava): The Preamble upholds liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship.
- Accommodation of Religious Pluralism: Special provisions like Article 30 (rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions) and recognition of tribal customary practices highlight this accommodative framework.
- Judicial interpretation: In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), secularism was declared part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Thus, Indian secularism seeks a balance between freedom of religion and the State’s responsibility to prevent coercion or exploitation in the name of religion.
Why is Rajasthan’s 2025 Bill significant in the larger political and legal context?
- The new Bill is among the strictest in India, with life imprisonment and fines up to ₹1 crore, inclusion of digital propaganda, and provisions for property seizure.
- Unlike earlier versions, it exempts “ghar wapsi” and allows “any person” to file a complaint—making it wider in scope. Rajasthan now joins States like Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand with similar laws.
The larger debate reflects India’s challenge of reconciling its pluralist ethos with rising demands for religious regulation.
How do laws such as anti-conversion Bills interact with the principles of secularism?
Anti-conversion laws like Rajasthan’s Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025 highlight the tension between religious autonomy and state control.
- Supporting secularism: The government argues these laws protect vulnerable groups from exploitation through coercion, fraud, or “allurement”, thereby maintaining communal harmony. Article 25 is cited to justify restrictions against fraudulent conversions.
- Undermining secularism: Critics, including the Opposition and civil society, argue such laws violate individual liberty of conscience, create suspicion of minorities, and politicise religion. The Rajasthan High Court in 2017 guidelines stressed that genuine adult conversions should not be restricted.
Case study: In 2006, a similar Bill in Rajasthan was returned by President Pratibha Patil, citing risks of misuse against minorities.
How should India balance religious autonomy and public order?
A calibrated approach is required:
- Upholding fundamental rights with reasonable restrictions: Voluntary conversions, even if unpopular, must be protected under Article 25. Excessive bureaucratic hurdles (90-day prior notice, mandatory inquiries) can lead to harassment.
- Ensuring social harmony: At the same time, mass coercive conversions or those linked to trafficking can threaten public order. The Supreme Court in Rev. Stanislaus v. State of M.P. (1977) upheld the State’s right to prohibit conversions by force or fraud. Under the Directive Principles, it is the State’s duty to promote harmony, equality, and prevent exploitation.
- Policy focus: Instead of criminalisation, empowerment of vulnerable groups through education, health, and economic mobility (as flagged in Economic Survey 2022-23 on tribal welfare) can reduce susceptibility to coercion.
- Promoting Ethical Conduct: Convening interreligious dialogue between religious leaders for amicable resolution of tension.
