A petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion (MFR) Act 2026. The plea, filed by Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan through advocate Abdul Mateen Shaikh, contends that the Act, described as anti-conversion legislation, infringes fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), 21, 25, 26, and 29 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner argues that while the State may legitimately prevent conversions brought about by force, fraud, coercion, or other means that vitiate free and informed consent, the MFR Act exceeds this permissible objective. It asserts that the impugned provisions are vague, overbroad, and disproportionate, thereby imposing unwarranted restrictions on freedom of conscience, religious choice, speech, association, privacy, and personal autonomy.
Specifically, the plea challenges Section 2(a) of the MFR Act, which defines the term 'allurement' using broad and subjective expressions such as 'better lifestyle' and 'divine healing'. The petition states that the wide sweep of this provision could bring legitimate religious discourse, propagation, charitable activities, and educational assistance within the ambit of penal consequences, producing a chilling effect on the freedoms guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), 25, and 26.
The petition further contends that certain provisions of the Act could expose voluntary religious activity and conversion to criminal liability even in the absence of actual force, fraud, or coercion. Such an interpretation, it argues, impermissibly interferes with the freedom of conscience protected under Article 25, which safeguards the right of a competent individual to make an informed and voluntary choice regarding faith and belief.
Sections 6 and 7 of the MFR Act are criticised for requiring prior disclosure of an intended conversion and subjecting such personal choice to scrutiny and inquiry by State authorities. The plea argues that this mechanism intrudes upon an individual's privacy, dignity, and decisional autonomy, noting that the choice to retain, change, or adopt a faith is intrinsically linked to conscience and identity. A blanket requirement of prior notice and State inquiry, it states, imposes a disproportionate restriction, particularly when instances involving force, fraud, or coercion can be addressed through less restrictive means.
Section 9 of the Act is challenged for prescribing serious penal consequences for contraventions arising from the statutory framework. The plea contends that this compounds the constitutional infirmity by imposing criminal liability on conduct regulated through vague and overbroad provisions, creating a risk of arbitrary enforcement and exerting a chilling effect on the exercise of fundamental freedoms.
The cumulative effect of the impugned provisions, according to the petitioner, is to confer excessive and unguided discretion upon authorities, resulting in arbitrary application in violation of Article 14; to restrict religious speech and association protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c); to intrude upon privacy, dignity, and decisional autonomy protected under Article 21; and to disproportionately interfere with freedom of conscience and the rights of religious denominations and minorities under Articles 25, 26, and 29.
With these contentions, the petition seeks a declaration that the MFR Act, particularly Sections 2(a), 3, 6, 7, and 9, is unconstitutional and void to the extent that it infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. The matter is currently pending before the Bombay High Court for adjudication.