The Supreme Court of India on Monday issued a notice to the Rajasthan government and other relevant parties in response to a petition challenging the validity of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, sought formal responses from the state and other respondents on the plea filed by the Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing the petitioner, stated that the challenge raises issues regarding legislative competence and argues that certain provisions of the law exceed constitutional limitations. “We have raised issues of legislative competence as well as excessiveness in terms of constitutional limitations,” Dhavan said during the hearing. He emphasized that the questions raised in this petition are distinct from those in other cases currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Justice Vikram Nath responded by noting that while similar petitions were pending, the matter at hand involved unique questions requiring separate consideration. He instructed the court registry to issue notices to the Rajasthan government and other respondents and scheduled the matter for a hearing four weeks later. The plea has also been tagged with other pending cases challenging anti-conversion laws across India to ensure a consolidated review where applicable.

Background on the Rajasthan Anti-Conversion Law

The Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025, was enacted by the state assembly in September 2025. The legislation aims to regulate religious conversions and prohibits conversions carried out through force, fraud, inducement, or other unlawful means. It mandates prior notification to district authorities in cases of intended conversion and imposes criminal penalties for violations.

This law follows a broader trend, as several other states—including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Karnataka—have enacted similar legislation in recent years. These laws have often been the subject of judicial scrutiny, with petitioners raising constitutional challenges relating to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution, as well as questions of arbitrariness, proportionality, and legislative competence.

Previous Supreme Court Actions

On November 3, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two petitions challenging several provisions of the Rajasthan anti-conversion law. At that time, the court issued notices to the Rajasthan government, directing it to file its response within four weeks. A separate bench had also sought responses from multiple states in connection with similar petitions challenging their respective anti-conversion statutes.

The apex court had clarified that it would consider petitions seeking a stay on the operation of these laws only after the state governments submitted their replies. The judicial process has been ongoing, with the court taking a cautious approach, emphasizing the need to balance constitutional freedoms with the state’s interest in regulating conversions.

Key Issues in the Petition

The Jaipur Catholic Welfare Society’s petition raises several legal arguments against the 2025 Act. Among these are:

1. Legislative Competence: The petitioner contends that the Rajasthan assembly may have overstepped its powers under the Constitution in enacting the law.
2. Constitutional Limitations: The Act is argued to contain provisions that are excessive or disproportionate, infringing on fundamental rights such as freedom of religion, expression, and personal liberty.
3. Impact on Religious Minorities: The petitioner highlights concerns that the law may be applied in a manner that disproportionately affects religious minorities, potentially restricting their rights to propagate and practice their faith.

The Supreme Court’s notice to the Rajasthan government requires it to respond to these arguments and provide justifications for the law’s provisions. The responses will form the basis for the court’s detailed examination of the constitutional validity of the Act.

Wider Implications

The Supreme Court’s review of the Rajasthan anti-conversion law is part of a larger judicial inquiry into similar laws enacted by multiple states. These statutes have been criticized by various religious and civil society organizations for potentially curtailing religious freedom and targeting minority communities. The Court’s ultimate ruling is likely to have nationwide implications, potentially setting a precedent for the constitutionality of state-level anti-conversion laws.

By consolidating multiple petitions and issuing notices to state governments, the Supreme Court is signaling its intent to carefully scrutinize both the legislative competence of the states and the broader implications of these laws on fundamental rights. The matter is expected to involve detailed legal arguments regarding the scope of state power, the balance between public order and religious freedom, and the interpretation of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.

Next Steps

The Rajasthan government, along with other respondents, will have four weeks to file their replies. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing following the submission of these responses. The Supreme Court will likely hear arguments from all parties, including representatives of the petitioner and intervening stakeholders, before arriving at a judgment.

The judicial proceedings around the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025, will be closely watched by political observers, legal experts, and religious organizations, as the outcome could influence the future of similar legislation across India.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s notice to the Rajasthan government initiates a formal examination of the anti-conversion law, raising key questions about legislative competence, constitutional boundaries, and the protection of religious freedom. The case is part of a larger judicial review of similar laws in other states, highlighting the ongoing tension between state regulatory authority and fundamental rights in India.