Proposed Amendment to Madhya Pradesh’s Anti-Conversion Law Risks Violating Fundamental Rights

On March 8, 2025, during an event marking International Women’s Day, the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh announced a controversial proposal to amend the existing Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 (MPFRA), by introducing the death penalty for those involved in forceful religious conversions of women. This move seeks to align the punishment with that prescribed for the rape of minor girls.

Although various Indian states have laws to regulate religious conversions, the proposed amendment significantly escalates the punishment to the death penalty, raising serious constitutional and legal concerns. Under Article 25 of the Indian constitution, all citizens are guaranteed the right to freedom of religion, which includes the right to propagate one’s faith. The MPFRA, however, allows family members of the person converted to file FIRs, increasing the risk of misuse of the law and false litigation in cases of voluntary conversion.

Several provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act (MPFRA), including Sections 5 and 10, are currently under challenge in the Supreme Court. In addition, multiple Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been filed by individuals from five different states, questioning the constitutionality of the anti-conversion laws of their respective states. These petitions argue that the laws violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, and 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has consolidated these PILs, and hearings in these matters were scheduled to begin in mid-May 2025. However, decisions in these cases are still pending.

The proposed amendment to the MPFRA also clashes with judicial precedents regarding the death penalty. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Court held that restrictions on Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (which ensures that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law) must be fair, just, and reasonable. The imposition of capital punishment for religious conversions fails this test, being arbitrary and disproportionate. Religious conversions, even if coerced, do not meet the threshold of heinousness laid down in Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) or the “rarest of rare” principle set in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980).

The lack of judicial discretion in the proposed amendment to the MPFRA also contradicts established legal standards. It prevents courts from considering mitigating factors or the potential for reform, elements crucial to sentencing in capital punishment cases. Notably, the Supreme Court recently commuted the death sentence of a man who was convicted in a quadruple murder case, citing mitigating factors.

Furthermore, the proposal breaches international human rights norms. India, having ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1979, is bound by Article 6 of the covenant, which restricts the death penalty to the “most serious crimes”. Religious conversion does not fall within this category. Additionally, Article 18 of both the ICCPR and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the right to change one’s religion.

In conclusion, the proposal to impose the death penalty for forced conversions in Madhya Pradesh marks a troubling deviation from constitutional safeguards, judicial principles, and international obligations. With the high risk of misuse and the potential for wrongful prosecution, the state must reconsider its approach and ensure any legislation upholds the Constitution and protects fundamental rights.

By Catholic Connect Reporter