Third, the broad and vague definitions of terms like "allurement," "force," and "fraudulent means" in these laws create potential for arbitrary application. Legal experts warn that such imprecise language could be weaponized to target interfaith marriages and genuine religious choices, effectively criminalizing consensual conversions between adults.

Landmark Cases and Judicial Pronouncements

The constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws has been examined by Indian courts on multiple occasions, producing a complex and sometimes contradictory body of jurisprudence. In the landmark case of Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1968, ruling that the right to propagate religion under Article 25 does not include a fundamental right to convert another person. The Court held that anti-conversion laws aimed at prohibiting conversions brought about through force, fraud, or allurement do not violate constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.

However, subsequent judicial developments have introduced greater nuance to this position. In Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) and Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of individual autonomy in matters of religion and marriage. More recently, in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018), popularly known as the Hadiya case, the Supreme Court strongly affirmed the right of adult individuals to make choices about their faith and life partners, stating that "matters of dress and of food, of ideas and ideologies, of love and partnership are within the central aspects of identity. Neither the state nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters."

The current challenge to the Uttar Pradesh law before the Supreme Court has seen the Court raise pointed questions about provisions requiring prior permission and public disclosure. The Court has emphasized India's constitutional commitment to secularism and questioned whether such requirements create an impermissible burden on the exercise of fundamental rights. The bench has also expressed concern about the potential misuse of these laws to target interfaith couples and religious minorities.