On Tuesday, September 16, 2025, the Supreme Court of India officially requested responses from various states regarding petitions that seek to halt the enforcement of their anti-conversion laws.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran issued notices to these states, clarifying that they would consider appeals for staying the operation of these laws only after receiving the states’ detailed responses.
For context: What are the existing laws on religious conversions?
The court granted the states a four-week period to submit their replies, with petitioners then having two additional weeks to file their rejoinders. The case is scheduled for further hearing in six weeks.
Meanwhile, senior advocate C.U. Singh, representing one of the petitioners challenging the anti-conversion laws, received permission from the bench to amend his petition. This amendment addresses the “more draconian” revisions introduced by states such as Uttar Pradesh to their existing statutes.
These hearings are centered on petitions that dispute the constitutional legitimacy of anti-conversion laws implemented by numerous states, including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka.
The court listened to arguments from various senior advocates and other parties concerning the highly debated subject of religious conversions, particularly those occurring through marriage or other methods.
Mr. Singh emphasized the urgent nature of the issue, cautioning that “anyone involved in an interfaith marriage might find it impossible to secure bail” under these laws. He pointed out that many states have already enacted such legislation, with Rajasthan recently becoming the latest to pass a new bill.
Mr. Singh further elaborated that amendments in Uttar Pradesh’s law permit third parties to file complaints, which has resulted in significant harassment for those in interfaith marriages and has even led to mobs interfering with church observances.
He formally requested that the amendment applications, submitted as part of the special leave petitions, be approved by the court.
Conversely, Senior advocate Indira Jaising urged the court to maintain an interim stay on the law enacted by Madhya Pradesh.
Additionally, Advocate Vrinda Grover notified the bench that intervention applications had been filed to seek a stay on comparable laws in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana.
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Natraj, representing some states, argued against the interim relief, stating, “They suddenly seek a stay after three or four years. We will submit our replies.” The bench also separated a petition filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, which called for a ban on deceptive religious conversions.
“Who is to determine if a conversion is genuinely deceitful?” the Chief Justice of India questioned.
To ensure efficient communication, the court designated advocate Shrishti as the nodal counsel for the petitioners and advocate Ruchira as the nodal counsel for the respondent states.
Earlier, the Centre questioned the standing (locus standi) of activist Teesta Setalwad’s NGO, Citizens for Justice and Peace, in challenging these controversial state laws concerning religious conversions linked to interfaith marriages.
The Union of India alleged that the NGO permits its name to be used “at the behest of some selected political interest” and accused it of accumulating substantial funds by exploiting the suffering of individuals affected by riots.
The Ministry of Home Affairs had stated, “A series of judicial proceedings have established that the first petitioner allows its name to be utilized through its two office-bearers for particular political interests and also profits from such activities.”
It is worth noting that the Supreme Court had previously agreed on January 6, 2021, to scrutinize controversial new laws from states like Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, which aim to regulate religious conversions arising from interfaith marriages.
The Uttar Pradesh law, for instance, encompasses not just interfaith marriages but all religious conversions, stipulating intricate procedures for anyone desiring to change their religion.
Similarly, Uttarakhand’s law imposes a two-year jail sentence on individuals found guilty of religious conversion achieved through “force or allurement,” with allurement broadly defined to include cash, employment, or various material benefits.
The NGO’s petition contends that these legislations infringe upon Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution, arguing that they grant the State the power to curtail an individual’s personal liberty and their fundamental freedom to practice the religion of their choice.