Bombay High Court Lets Petitioner Withdraw Challenge to Maharashtra Anti-Conversion Act, Allows Fresh Petition
The Bombay High Court on Thursday allowed a petitioner to withdraw his challenge to the constitutional validity of Maharashtra's anti-conversion legislation, after the Court questioned the absence of specific facts showing how the law had adversely affected him.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna was hearing a writ petition filed by Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan, a 70-year-old Islamic teacher from Bhiwandi in Thane district, challenging the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026.
The Bench expressed reservations about examining a constitutional challenge that, in its view, lacked a clearly established cause of action. It indicated that the petitioner needed to show how the legislation had interfered with his ability to practise or propagate his religion, rather than merely raising broader questions about the validity of the statutory framework. The Court asked him to place concrete instances of alleged state interference on record so that the law's operation and its impact on the ground could be meaningfully assessed.
Senior Advocate Yusuf Muchhala, appearing for the petitioner, sought permission to amend the petition to add factual material. The Bench declined the request, after which counsel sought leave to withdraw the proceedings. The Court permitted the withdrawal while preserving the petitioner's liberty to approach it again through a fresh petition. The proceedings thus ended without any ruling on the constitutional validity of the legislation.
During the hearing, Muchhala assailed several provisions of the Act, arguing that they imposed excessive restrictions on religious freedom and individual autonomy. He questioned the definition of "allurement" under Section 2(a) and challenged the procedural requirements governing religious conversion under Sections 6 and 7. The petitioner's main contention was that the legislation went beyond preventing conversions secured through force, fraud or coercion and could interfere with the freedom of conscience and the right to propagate religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Particular concern was raised over Section 6, which requires a person intending to convert to another religion to give 60 days' advance notice. The petitioner argued that this requirement, along with the public disclosure of such notices and the invitation of objections, subjected a personal decision about faith to unnecessary scrutiny by state authorities. The challenge also questioned the prospect of police inquiries into an individual's religious choices, contending that such procedures could infringe the constitutionally protected right to privacy.
The Bench, however, sought to ascertain how the petitioner himself had suffered prejudice under the provisions in question. It emphasised the need for factual pleadings establishing a direct connection between the statutory provisions under challenge and the grievance raised before the Court. During the hearing, the Chief Justice observed that individuals were free to change their religion, while distinguishing voluntary conversion from conversion undertaken merely to facilitate a marriage.
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, seeks to prohibit religious conversions brought about through force, fraud, coercion, allurement, misrepresentation, undue influence or marriage. Its provisions have attracted objections concerning their potential impact on religious liberty, privacy and the autonomy of individuals choosing their faith.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Yusuf Muchhala, instructed by advocate Mateen Shaikh. The case is Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Source: India Legal