The Supreme Court today issued notice to the Rajasthan government on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging several provisions of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025, alleging that they violate fundamental rights and amount to “punitive demolitions and collective punishment.”
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order while hearing the PIL filed by advocate and researcher M. Huzaifa and veteran human rights activist John Dayal. The PIL has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Yashwant Singh.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay.
The Court also tagged the matter with another pending PIL, Dashrath Kumar Hinunia v. State of Rajasthan, argued by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, in which notice and stay applications had earlier been issued.
During the hearing, the Bench questioned why the petition had not been filed before the Rajasthan High Court.
In response, Ahmadi submitted that similar challenges to anti-conversion laws from other states are already pending before the Supreme Court, and related matters have been transferred to it.
Calling the Rajasthan law “the most egregious” of all state anti-conversion legislations, Ahmadi pointed out that it prescribes “mind-boggling fines” up to Rs 20 lakh for mass conversion (defined as conversion of more than two persons) and provides for punishment ranging from 20 years to life imprisonment.
The petition challenges the constitutionality of Sections 5(6), 10(3), 12, and 13 of the 2025 Act, which empower executive authorities to confiscate, forfeit, and even demolish private property linked to alleged unlawful conversions without judicial determination of guilt.
Under Section 5(6), property where conversion has allegedly occurred may be forfeited after an inquiry by a gazetted officer.
Section 10(3) authorizes the State Government to cancel registrations of institutions accused of violating the Act, confiscate their property, freeze their accounts, and impose penalties up to Rs 1 crore.
Further, Sections 12 and 13 allow the District Magistrate or any officer appointed by the State to order forfeiture or demolition of properties or structures where illegal conversions are said to have taken place, even before any court verdict.
The petitioners argue that these provisions violate Articles 14, 21, 22, and 300A of the Constitution by permitting punitive actions without trial, undermining the rule of law and the doctrine of separation of powers.
They contend that the law seeks to legitimize extrajudicial demolitions, an act expressly prohibited by the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment on the issue.
Highlighting the disproportionate impact on minorities and marginalized groups, the petitioners have urged the apex court to strike down these provisions as unconstitutional.
