Threat to Constitutional freedoms: Civil society groups oppose Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The Joint Civil Society on Monday (24 August 2026) opposed the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, calling it a serious threat to Constitutional freedoms, privacy and social harmony, days before the Act is set to come into force on August 28, 2026.

In a statement, the group said provisions requiring prior notice, declarations, reporting and police scrutiny of religious conversions could subject matters of faith, marriage and personal choice to intrusive State oversight.

The group also cited the recent invocation of the Act by Pune police in two FIRs before the law was due to come into force. Police subsequently removed the provisions after the State government notified August 28 as the commencement date.

The Joint Civil Society said its main concerns included third-party complaints, reversal of the burden of proof, cognisable and non-bailable offences, and the broad definition of “allurement”, which it said could place legitimate charitable, educational and religious activities under scrutiny.

The coalition also argued that the Act disproportionately affects women, young adults, Dalits and Adivasis by restricting their autonomy in matters of faith and relationships. It said mandatory disclosures and police inquiries were difficult to reconcile with Constitutional protections of religious freedom, privacy, dignity and personal liberty.

The group also cited the recent invocation of the Act by Pune police in two FIRs before the law was due to come into force. Police subsequently removed the provisions after the State government notified August 28 as the commencement date.

The Joint Civil Society said its main concerns included third-party complaints, reversal of the burden of proof, cognizable and non-bailable offences, and the broad definition of “allurement”, which it said could place legitimate charitable, educational and religious activities under scrutiny.

The coalition also argued that the Act disproportionately affects women, young adults, Dalits and Adivasis by restricting their autonomy in matters of faith and relationships. It said mandatory disclosures and police inquiries were difficult to reconcile with Constitutional protections of religious freedom, privacy, dignity and personal liberty.

Advocate Irfan Engineer, advocate Lara Jesani, Tushar Gandhi, retired Justice Abhay Thipsay, Father Frazer Mascarenhas and Sandhya Gokhale spoke against the Act.

Father Frazer Mascheranus questioned whether free or affordable education and religious healing services could be construed as ‘allurement’ under the law.“How can education be considered inducement to convert?” he asked, warning that the provisions could affect religious organisations as well as the communities they serve.

“The law is such that anyone can make an allegation, but I have to prove it. Healing services are a part of the practices of the Christian religion.