Anti-conversion law faces challenge in Chhattisgarh, High Court asks state to respond

What is the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, and what does it regulate?

The Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, is a state law regulating religious conversions. It was passed by the Legislative Assembly in March and received the Governor’s assent in April. The law matters because it places procedural, registration, and criminal requirements around changing or facilitating a person’s religion.

For example, people seeking conversion may have to make disclosures, give public notice, face objections, and undergo verification. Priests, pastors, and others who conduct or facilitate conversions must register with the state. The law also provides severe penalties for unlawful conversion, including imprisonment and fines.

The law is now being challenged before the Chhattisgarh High Court. Petitioners argue that its requirements interfere with freedom of conscience, religious freedom, privacy, and personal liberty. The court has asked the state to respond to their request for an interim stay within three weeks.

What has the Chhattisgarh High Court asked the state government to do, and by when?

The Chhattisgarh High Court has asked the state government to file its response to the petition and the requested interim relief. The court gave the government three weeks. The case concerns the constitutional validity of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, and the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion Rules, 2026.

The petition was heard virtually by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Krushna Ram Mohapatra and Justice Santosh Sharma. Senior advocates Dr S. Muralidhar and Manoj Paranjpe argued for the petitioners. Advocate Harshmander Rastogi, who filed the petition, confirmed the three-week deadline.

The court has not been reported as finally deciding whether the law is constitutional. The petitioners have asked for a temporary stay on several provisions, including public notice, objections, inquiries, mandatory appearances, and declarations. The next immediate step is the state’s response on interim relief.

How severe are the law's penalties, and what kinds of approvals, notices, registrations, and inquiries can it require?

The penalties are unusually severe in the dispute described. Criminal provisions provide for at least seven years’ imprisonment, which can extend to life imprisonment, and fines of up to Rs 10 lakh. These consequences apply to unlawful conversion under the challenged framework.

The law also creates several procedural steps. People seeking conversion may face disclosure and verification requirements, public notice, and an opportunity for objections. Priests, pastors, and others conducting or facilitating conversions must register with the state. The petitioners also challenge financial, digital, and personal inquiries, mandatory appearances, declarations, and scrutiny by Gram Sabhas in Scheduled Areas.

These requirements are central to the constitutional challenge. The petitioners say they make even voluntary conversion cumbersome and subject personal religious choices to official scrutiny. They have asked the High Court to suspend key provisions while it considers the case. The state’s response is due within three weeks.

What could happen to people seeking to change their religion, religious workers, and places of worship if the challenged provisions remain in force?

If the challenged provisions remain in force, people seeking to change religion could face a public and administrative process rather than a private decision. They may have to provide disclosures, give public notice, allow objections, attend mandatory appearances, and submit to personal, financial, or digital inquiries. Their choices could also face official verification.

Religious workers would face registration requirements if they conduct or facilitate conversions. The petitioners say criminal provisions could expose them to at least seven years in prison, life imprisonment, and fines of up to Rs 10 lakh. Religious places could also be closed, according to the allegations before the court.

The petitioners claim these effects could disrupt worship, prayer, and peaceful religious gatherings. They seek protection against coercive action based only on religious activities, allegations, or apprehensions. The High Court has requested the government’s response, so the article does not report a final ruling or a granted stay.

Why do the petitioners argue that requiring public notice, objections, and government clearance for a voluntary conversion violates constitutional rights?

The petitioners’ core argument is that a person’s faith should not depend on state approval or prior public notification. They say choosing or changing religion is closely connected to freedom of conscience, privacy, personal liberty, and the freedom to practise religion. Public disclosure may also expose an intensely personal decision to outside objections.

The law requires disclosure and verification procedures, including public notice and an opportunity for objections. The petitioners argue that even a voluntary conversion can therefore become cumbersome. They also challenge financial, digital, and personal inquiries, mandatory appearances, declarations, and scrutiny of religious choices by Gram Sabhas in Scheduled Areas.

Their requested interim relief would suspend these requirements while the court considers the constitutional challenge. They also want FIRs registered only when there is prima facie material showing a specific offence. The High Court has asked the state to respond within three weeks, but it has not finally ruled on the arguments.

How can a court temporarily suspend parts of a law while it considers whether the law itself is constitutionally valid?

An interim stay is a temporary court order that pauses the operation or enforcement of specified legal provisions. It can protect people from possible harm while judges examine the larger constitutional question. Granting a stay does not automatically mean the law is invalid, and refusing one does not finally confirm its validity.

In this case, the petitioners have asked the Chhattisgarh High Court to suspend provisions requiring public notice and objections to proposed conversions. They also seek a pause on financial, digital, and personal inquiries, mandatory appearances, declarations, and Gram Sabha scrutiny in Scheduled Areas. They want limits on closures and coercive action as well.

The article reports that the court asked the state to respond to the interim relief request within three weeks. It does not report that a stay has already been granted. The court may therefore consider the temporary requests before, or separately from, a final decision on constitutional validity.

What is freedom of conscience, and how does it relate to the constitutional protection of privacy, personal liberty, and freedom of religion?

Freedom of conscience is the principle that people may hold personal convictions about belief, faith, or religion without being forced to adopt a particular view. It protects the inner choice of what to believe and, subject to lawful limits, how to express or practise that belief. The article identifies it as one of the constitutional rights invoked by the petitioners.

The petitioners argue that requiring public notice, objections, government clearances, declarations, and inquiries places a person’s religious choice under official scrutiny. They say this affects privacy because the choice may be deeply personal. They also connect it to personal liberty, which concerns an individual’s protected freedom to make important life decisions.

These ideas overlap but are not identical. Freedom of religion concerns belief and practice, privacy protects personal information and choices, and personal liberty protects individual autonomy. The High Court must consider how these protections apply to the challenged Act and Rules. The state’s response is due within three weeks.

Key Facts:

📌 The Act regulates religious conversions in Chhattisgarh.

📌 The Assembly passed it in March 2026.

📌 The law requires registration of conversion facilitators.

📌 The state has three weeks to respond.

📌 The response concerns the petitioners’ request for interim relief.

📌 A Division Bench heard the matter virtually.

📌 Imprisonment can start at seven years.