Senior Advocate and former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, Dr. S. Muralidhar, recently described anti-conversion laws across India as “anti-choice” legislation. Speaking at an ADF India panel discussion on anti-conversion laws on February 28, he highlighted the inherent flaws in such laws, which presume that religious conversions are the result of coercion or intimidation.
Muralidhar emphasized that these laws shift the burden of proof onto the accused rather than the individual who has chosen to convert. He stated, “These anti-conversion laws are not so much a law against forced conversions, but are laws against the freedom of choice. There is a presumption in all these laws that if a person belonging or born into a certain religion decides to embrace another religion, then such a decision must be due to some kind of intimidation. This basic presumption explains why the law shifts the burden of proof onto the person who’s charged with converting another against the person’s will.”
He further argued that these laws target not only forced conversions but also individuals who voluntarily choose to convert based on personal conviction. “The law is meant to target any choice, not just a conversion which is made out of volition by a person who says, ‘I find these values of this religion more appealing to me.’ The target is also the Dalits,” he added.
Muralidhar elaborated on how the procedural requirements of these laws create significant hurdles for individuals, particularly minorities, and often lead to public humiliation. He explained, “A Dalit seeking to embrace Buddhism will now have to explain to a district magistrate why they are making that choice. They’ll have to announce to the whole world: ‘Listen, I’m exercising my choice to embrace a particular religion.’ After the Puttaswamy privacy judgment, this kind of law should not withstand legal scrutiny because it directly undermines the freedom of choice, freedom of privacy, and the choice of religion.”
He also pointed out that such laws infringe on personal freedoms, including the choice of dress, food, and prayer. “Personal choice has become a public choice, and individuals are forced to defend themselves publicly for the personal choices they’ve made. This is the most pernicious aspect of these conversion laws,” he said.
Muralidhar criticized the broad scope of who can file complaints under these laws, noting that it enables vigilante groups to harass individuals. “The law allows anyone—a cousin, a relative, or even vigilante groups—to file complaints. These groups often monitor notice boards and registrar offices to identify individuals planning inter-faith marriages or conversions, subjecting them to public intimidation,” he stated.
Reflecting on the societal impact of these laws, Muralidhar questioned whether society would change even if the laws were declared unconstitutional. “All these social practices seem impervious to constitutional values. The real victory will come when we transform ourselves as a society, overcome our inherent prejudices, and emancipate ourselves as true human beings,” he concluded.
Muralidhar’s remarks underscore the broader concerns about the impact of anti-conversion laws on individual freedoms and the need for societal change to align with constitutional principles.