- 18 September, 2025
September 18, 2025: Tehmina Arora is a distinguished human rights advocate and legal expert, recognised for her unwavering commitment to defending religious freedom and minority rights in India. As the Founding Trustee of ADF India and Director of Advocacy for Asia at ADF International, she has been instrumental in challenging laws that infringe upon constitutional rights. In light of recent petitions filed before the Supreme Court challenging anti-conversion laws, Catholic Connect interviewed Arora and discussed the implications of anti-conversion laws, highlighting cases such as the Madhya Pradesh incident, where a person's home was partially demolished without due process, and the Durg case in Chhattisgarh, where tribal girls and nuns faced detention despite no proven conversion. She emphasized the urgent need for judicial clarity to safeguard constitutional rights and prevent misuse of such laws.
Q: How has the anti-conversion law impacted the nation till date?
A: These laws are not new. Odisha enacted the first in 1967, followed by Madhya Pradesh in 1968. The notion that religious conversion requires regulation goes back even to the Constituent Assembly debates. At that time, it was recognised that if there is force or pressure in a conversion, existing criminal laws were sufficient.
Jawaharlal Nehru himself had warned in 1950 that such laws would push India towards becoming a police state. Unfortunately, that is what has happened. Today, twelve states—including Rajasthan most recently—have enacted such laws with draconian provisions, such as life imprisonment for sharing one’s faith.
The definitions of “force,” “fraud,” and “inducement” are so broad that ordinary events like birthday parties, weddings, or even carrying religious literature are mischaracterised as conversion attempts. The impact has been devastating: hundreds of people have been arrested and jailed for months, while convictions remain negligible. The burden of proof has been reversed, making it nearly impossible to prove innocence.
Q: With the petitions now before the Supreme Court, how do you see the matter unfolding?
A: When these laws were challenged earlier in 1975, it was during the Emergency, when fundamental rights were suspended. In that context, the Supreme Court upheld the laws, saying one had the right to “propagate” religion but not to “convert.”
But today, even when individuals affirm that their conversion is voluntary, the law refuses to recognise their testimony. The state is effectively deciding what a person’s faith should be. This is why clarity from the Supreme Court is urgently needed, as these laws have gone beyond what the Constitution allows.
Q: What are your views on the Durg nuns’ case in Chhattisgarh, where the tribal girls were denied justice even by the State Women’s Commission recently?
A: That case exposes the deep flaws in these laws. Complaints can be filed by third parties who were not even involved. In Durg, despite the girls and their families confirming there was no conversion, the nuns and the girls faced detention. And yet again were denied justice in the State Women's Commission.
Here, the supposed “victims” were silenced, while the state machinery aggressively insisted otherwise. This is paternalism at its worst—the state telling individuals that they do not know their own will. Such misuse is why petitions against these laws are pending before the Court.
Q: What legal or procedural safeguards should the Court insist on to prevent misuse of these laws?
A: I believe these laws should be repealed entirely. Existing criminal provisions are sufficient to deal with cases of coercion or fraud. These special laws are unnecessary and are being misused.
If the Court nevertheless allows them to remain, it must at least answer key questions: Can a third party dictate my religious choice? Can the state demand prior notice, sometimes 60 days in advance, before I change my faith? In one Himachal Pradesh case, the Court asked: what if someone is dying—should they wait 60 days before converting? Such provisions are indefensible.
Q: If these laws remain, how can minority communities defend themselves legally?
A: Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to practise, profess, and propagate religion—not only to Indian citizens but also to foreigners and refugees. This is central to our constitutional vision.
True religious freedom includes the right to change one’s religion. As UN Special Rapporteur Dr. Heiner Bielefeldt observed, a country can only be said to have religious freedom if it allows individuals to refuse religion. Otherwise, there is no true freedom—only the pretence of it. So the idea of refusing one religion and adopting another is the very essence of religious freedom.
India’s own history affirms this principle. During the First War of Independence, sepoys revolted because cartridges greased with cow and pig fat violated their conscience. At the heart of our freedom struggle was the conviction that no one should be forced against their faith. These laws undermine that very identity.
Q: How can the younger generation be better educated on constitutional rights, as most youngsters today are not concerned with political and legal affairs?
Education requires open debate and discussion, and these conversations are not happening enough in our society today. Without such dialogue, awareness cannot grow. Christian schools and colleges, for instance, could take the lead by hosting national debates and essay competitions on constitutional rights and religious freedom.
It is not only the younger generation that needs this education—we too must engage in these conversations to continually educate ourselves. Healthy debate can strengthen society, and institutions have the opportunity to create such avenues for all.
Q: Many young people are turning away from religion, seeing it as divisive. How do you see this affecting the nation’s spirituality?
A: Religion often gets a bad name because of its misuse, but faith continues to hold deep value. There is a distinction between organised religion and personal faith. Young people may distance themselves from organised religion, but I believe they are not abandoning faith or spirituality. As a society, we need conversations about values and morality—and faith plays a central role in shaping both.
Q. To wrap up, are there any other pressing concerns you see with the anti-conversion laws?
A: I also want to point out a recent case in Madhya Pradesh, where the home of a person accused of religious conversion was partly demolished. Even though nothing had been proven, authorities went ahead and tore down large sections of his house. They justified it as an unauthorised construction, which is understandable in some cases, but most houses might have an extra window or door that could technically be called unauthorised. The key point is that legal procedures must be properly followed.
We have already seen similar cases with Muslims, where homes of those accused of crimes were demolished. Now, this appears to be affecting the Christian community as well, highlighting a broader issue that needs to be taken seriously.
The misuse of anti-conversion laws highlights serious challenges for religious freedom in India. With petitions now pending before the Supreme Court, advocates urge legal clarity, strict adherence to procedure, and broader awareness to protect all communities’ constitutional rights.
By Catholic Connect Reporter
Download Catholic Connect App for Daily News Updates:
Android: Click here to download
© 2025 CATHOLIC CONNECT POWERED BY ATCONLINE LLP