Challenge to Maharashtra Anti-Conversion Law Withdrawn in High Court

A writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, was withdrawn today from the Bombay High Court. The case, titled Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., faced scrutiny from a Division Bench led by Chief Justice Mahesh C. Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna, who expressed hesitance to consider the petition without specific factual claims indicating a legitimate cause of action.

The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, enacted to prevent religious conversions through coercion or deceit, has been a focal point of debate. Critics argue that the law's broad provisions, including a 60-day notice requirement before conversion, may infringe on individual privacy and personal autonomy, particularly affecting voluntary conversions and interfaith marriages. The petition was filed by a 70-year-old Islamic teacher from Bhiwandi, Thane, represented by Senior Advocate Yusuf Muchhala, who raised concerns about the law's implications on religious freedom.

During the hearings, Muchhala contested the definition of "allurement" as outlined in the Act and criticized the stringent pre-conversion procedures mandated under Sections 6 and 7. He argued that the law infringes upon the right to propagate religion as protected by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. The requirement for individuals to notify authorities 60 days in advance of a conversion, followed by public notice inviting objections, was highlighted as a violation of privacy rights.

The Court, however, questioned the petitioner's direct grievance regarding the law, noting that the petition lacked substantial factual grounding and appeared to present an academic challenge rather than a concrete legal issue. Chief Justice Tripathi emphasized the distinction between voluntary faith adoption and conversions motivated solely by marriage, stating that while the state is concerned with coercive conversions, individuals maintain the freedom to change their religion.

Following the Court's refusal to allow amendments to the petition for the introduction of concrete facts, the petitioner opted to withdraw the plea. The Court clarified that the petitioner retains the right to file a new petition in the future, should he choose to present a more substantiated case. Muchhala was assisted by advocate Mateen Shaikh during the proceedings.