A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna made the observations on Thursday while hearing a petition questioning the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026. The court permitted the petitioner to withdraw his challenge and file a fresh petition after finding that the existing pleadings lacked specific facts demonstrating how he had been affected.
The bench did not rule on the constitutionality of the legislation. Its remarks concerning marriage and religious conversion were observations during the hearing rather than a final determination of the legal issues raised by the petition.
The petition was filed by Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan, a 70-year-old Islamic teacher from Bhiwandi in Thane district. He argued that provisions of the legislation interfered with freedom of conscience, privacy and personal autonomy, and could expose voluntary religious conversions to criminal proceedings.
Chief Justice Tripathi distinguished an individual’s freedom to adopt another religion from conversion undertaken merely to facilitate marriage. The bench also questioned whether a constitutional challenge could proceed without identifying concrete instances of injury or interference arising from the law.
Senior advocate Yusuf Muchhala, appearing for Khan, sought permission to amend the petition to introduce additional factual material. The court declined that request, after which the petitioner withdrew the proceedings with liberty to approach the court again through a more detailed challenge.
The judges indicated that the petitioner should explain the practical consequences of the legislation and identify circumstances in which its provisions had affected individuals. The hearing also referred to two prosecutions registered in Pune under the law that had not been included in the petition.
Khan’s challenge focused on several provisions, including the definition of allurement and procedures requiring people intending to change religion to notify the authorities beforehand. His lawyers argued that these requirements could subject private decisions about religious belief to official scrutiny even where no coercion or deception was alleged.
Section 6 requires advance notice of an intended conversion, with a 60-day period specified under the legislation. The petitioner objected to the disclosure of personal information and the possibility of objections and inquiries, contending that these procedures intruded upon constitutionally protected choices.
The petition also questioned Section 2(a), which defines allurement. It argued that broadly framed language could encompass legitimate religious teaching, charitable activities and persuasion, making it difficult for individuals and organisations to know what conduct might attract prosecution.
The challenge invoked constitutional guarantees covering equality, expression, association, life and personal liberty, freedom of religion and minority rights. Khan maintained that restrictions designed to prevent forced or fraudulent conversion should not extend to consensual changes of faith or voluntary interfaith relationships.
The Maharashtra government has presented the Act as a measure against conversions secured through force, fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, undue influence or inducement. Its stated objective is to prevent unlawful conversion rather than prohibit the exercise of religious freedom through genuine personal choice.
The legislation includes criminal penalties for prohibited conversions and enhanced punishment in specified circumstances. Its requirements concerning advance declarations and official examination of conversions have prompted objections over privacy, enforcement powers and the potential consequences for people entering interfaith marriages.
The petition additionally questioned provisions placing the burden of proving that a conversion was lawful upon an accused person. Khan contended that such requirements could undermine procedural fairness and expose individuals to prosecution without adequate safeguards. His challenge sought either invalidation of the disputed provisions or a narrower interpretation restricting their application to conversions involving improper pressure or deception.
Article 25 of the Constitution protects freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limitations. The dispute raises questions about how those protections interact with state powers to regulate conversions obtained through improper means.
The petitioner also challenged provisions governing punishment, arguing that serious criminal consequences could follow from procedures and definitions he considered vague. Those objections remain allegations advanced in the withdrawn petition, not findings accepted by the High Court.
Khan filed the case through advocate Abdul Mateen Shaikh. The bench’s permission to bring a fresh petition leaves him able to set out specific grievances and supporting facts in any subsequent proceedings.
