Maharashtra Assembly Passes Freedom of Religion Bill; Uddhav’s Support Sparks Political Debate.

‘Not Against Any Religion’: Maharashtra Passes Freedom of Religion Bill; Congress Calls It Unconstitutional, Sena (UBT) Supports.

Hridaya Bharti | HENB | Mumbai | March 18, 2026:: The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on Monday passed the Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026, introduced by the ruling Mahayuti government, setting off a sharp political divide over its intent, constitutional validity, and potential social impact. While the ruling alliance defended the law as a safeguard against coercive religious conversions, Opposition parties termed it unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Bill is expected to be tabled in the Legislative Council on Tuesday.

The legislation was introduced by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who asserted that it is aimed at preventing religious conversions through coercion, inducement, fraud, or deception. He maintained that the law is “not against any religion” but is meant to protect the freedom of religion for all citizens, in line with constitutional guarantees under Article 25.

Fadnavis argued that the absence of specific legal provisions has often led to complications in handling cases involving alleged unlawful conversions and interfaith marriages. “Cases of interfaith marriages sometimes lead to law-and-order situations. Existing laws like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita do not explicitly address such matters, forcing authorities to rely on general provisions like fraud,” he said. The Chief Minister added that the Bill seeks to provide clarity and prevent recurring tensions where opposing groups confront each other, triggering disturbances.

He further noted that similar anti-conversion laws have already been enacted in multiple states, including Odisha, Karnataka, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Arunachal Pradesh, and reiterated that the Maharashtra law is “100% in tune with the Constitution.”

The motion to pass the Bill was moved by Minister of State Pankaj Bhoyar.

Sena (UBT) Backs Bill, Signals Political Shift?

In a significant political development, the Bill received support from Uddhav Thackeray and his party, Shiv Sena (UBT), marking a notable departure from its recent alignment with secular parties. Thackeray said that while freedom of religion must be upheld universally, any conversion carried out through force, deception, or exploitation should be opposed. “We support the Bill fully,” he said. Sena (UBT) MLA Bhaskar Jadhav also endorsed the legislation in the Assembly.

Thackeray’s support has sparked wider political discussion, with observers interpreting it as a potential return to his party’s traditional Hindutva positioning. After breaking ties with the BJP in 2019 and forming a government with Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Thackeray had been seen as adopting a more secular political stance. His backing of the anti-conversion law is now being viewed by critics and analysts alike as a “homecoming” to his ideological roots.

Over the past five years, Thackeray’s political trajectory has been marked by dramatic shifts—from leading a coalition with ideologically diverse partners to now supporting a law often associated with the Hindutva agenda. His silence during certain controversies in his tenure, including debates around Hindutva icons and incidents like the Palghar lynching case, had led to questions among supporters about his ideological consistency. The current move, therefore, is being interpreted as an attempt to reclaim that identity.

Opposition Calls Bill ‘Unconstitutional’ and ‘One-Sided’

Opposition parties, including Congress, NCP (Sharad Pawar faction), Samajwadi Party, and CPI(M), strongly opposed the Bill and demanded that it be referred to a joint select committee for wider consultation and public input.

Congress MLA Aslam Shaikh criticised the Bill as unconstitutional, arguing that it infringes upon the right to privacy and could adversely affect interfaith relationships. He raised concerns over provisions requiring individuals to give a 60-day prior notice before conversion, questioning why a deeply personal decision should be publicly घोषित (declared).

“Who will ensure the safety of such individuals after they disclose their intention? There are no safeguards in the Bill,” he said, adding that shifting the burden of proof onto the accused is also constitutionally questionable. He further claimed that the law could unjustly target consenting adults in interfaith relationships and criticised the government for citing “love jihad” without presenting concrete data.

Samajwadi Party MLA Rais Shaikh termed the Bill “regressive” and alleged that it was designed to target a particular community. Congress MLA Amin Patel echoed similar concerns, calling it a violation of constitutional principles.

Broader Debate Intensifies

The passage of the Bill reflects a broader national trend, with several states enacting laws to regulate religious conversions. While proponents argue such measures are necessary to prevent exploitation and ensure genuine consent, critics warn that they may infringe upon individual freedoms, particularly the right to privacy and the freedom to choose one’s faith or partner.

As the Bill moves to the Legislative Council, the debate over its legal and social implications is expected to intensify, with both supporters and critics preparing for further scrutiny of its provisions.
…
_Agency Inputs.