Mumbai: The government of Maharashtra has introduced the controversial Dharma Swatantrya Bill, 2026, in the state assembly, proposing stricter regulations on religious conversions and special provisions concerning children born from marriages involving alleged forced conversions.
A key provision in the bill states that children born from marriages carried out through illegal or forced religious conversions will legally be considered followers of the religion practised by the mother before the marriage. The proposal has sparked debate over religious freedom and individual rights.
Under the legislation, individuals intending to convert to another religion must submit a 60-day prior notice to the district magistrate. After the conversion, they must also provide supporting documents confirming the change. Violations of these procedures could attract up to seven years of imprisonment and a fine of ₹5 lakh. Repeat offenders may face rigorous imprisonment of up to 10 years and a fine of ₹7 lakh.
The bill also addresses the legal rights of children born in such marriages. Section 5 stipulates that these children will retain the right to inherit property from both parents according to succession laws. They will also be entitled to maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, and their custody will remain with the mother unless a court rules otherwise.
State authorities say the move follows a rise in alleged illegal religious conversion cases. The government had earlier formed a special panel, including the state Director General of Police, to study legal issues surrounding conversions and review laws implemented in other states before recommending the proposed legislation.
If enacted, Maharashtra will become the tenth Indian state to impose restrictions on religious conversions. Similar laws have already been implemented in states including Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka.
Supporters argue that while the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, the right is subject to public order, morality and health, and therefore regulation is justified. Critics, however, warn that the proposed law could infringe upon personal liberty and the constitutional right to freely practice and propagate religion.