SUPREME COURT TO EXAMINE CHALLENGES TO RAJASTHAN ANTI-CONVERSION LAW; PETITIONERS OBJECT TO CONFISCATION AND DEMOLITION CLAUSES:

The Supreme Court of India has issued notice on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging several provisions of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025, on the grounds of unconstitutionality. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, which directed the Rajasthan government to file its response. The petition, filed by advocate and researcher M. Huzaifa and veteran human rights activist John Dayal, contests multiple sections of the Act that empower authorities to confiscate and demolish private properties allegedly linked to “unlawful religious conversions” even before a judicial determination of guilt.

Senior Advocate Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay represented the petitioners, while a similar petition titled Dashrath Kumar Hinunia v. State of Rajasthan, argued by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi—was also listed for hearing before the same bench. Notices were issued in both petitions, along with a stay application. During the proceedings, the bench queried why the matter had not been initially filed before the Rajasthan High Court. In response, Senior Advocate Ahmadi explained that similar petitions concerning anti-conversion laws in other States were already pending before the Supreme Court and had been transferred to it, thereby justifying the current filing.

Ahmadi described Rajasthan’s anti-conversion law as one of the most extreme among similar legislations enacted across the country. He pointed out that the statute prescribes disproportionately severe punishments, with fines for “mass conversions”, defined as converting more than two individuals—going up to ₹20 lakh, and imprisonment ranging from a minimum of 20 years to life. The counsel emphasized that such provisions are excessive, unreasonable, and incompatible with constitutional guarantees.

The petition specifically challenges Sections 5(6), 10(3), 12, and 13 of the 2025 Act. Section 5(6) authorizes the forfeiture of any property where an alleged unlawful religious conversion has taken place, following an inquiry conducted by a gazetted officer appointed by the District Magistrate or the State Government. Section 10(3) empowers the government to permanently cancel the registration or license of any institution or organization found in violation of the Act, as well as to confiscate its property, freeze its financial accounts, and impose penalties of up to Rs.1 crore.

Section 12 further allows the District Magistrate or any designated officer to confiscate properties or premises where an illegal conversion or mass conversion is alleged to have occurred, again based solely on an administrative inquiry. Section 13 authorizes the demolition of unauthorized structures on such properties. The procedure outlined permits demolitions following an inquiry by a gazetted officer, with prior notice to be issued either as per municipal law timelines or within fifteen days, whichever is later. In cases involving public spaces such as roads, railways, or water bodies, the law mandates demolition within seventy-two hours after notice is served.

The petitioners argue that these provisions effectively sanction punitive demolitions and collective punishment, violating fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, 22, and 300A of the Constitution. They submit that the Act unlawfully empowers administrative officers to impose severe penalties without judicial oversight, thereby undermining the rule of law and eroding the separation of powers. The petition asserts that such provisions amount to an extrajudicial exercise of punitive authority, allowing executive officials to determine guilt and carry out property confiscation and demolition without trial.

The petitioners further contend that the impugned provisions directly contravene the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment, which had explicitly prohibited extrajudicial demolitions and reaffirmed that any punitive action against property must follow due process and judicial scrutiny. According to the petitioners, the Rajasthan law attempts to grant legislative legitimacy to an act the apex court has already declared unconstitutional. They warn that the enforcement of these provisions could result in grave consequences, particularly for marginalized and minority communities, by threatening their right to housing, livelihood, and due process protections.

The Supreme Court has now sought a response from the Rajasthan government on these challenges, marking the beginning of a constitutional examination of the 2025 anti-conversion legislation.