Retired Justice S Muralidhar Calls Anti-Conversion Laws “Anti-Choice,” Says They Target Dalits

Retired Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, Dr. S Muralidhar, has strongly criticised anti-conversion laws in India, calling them “anti-choice” and “pernicious” while arguing that they disproportionately target Dalits and restrict individual freedoms.

Speaking at an ADF India panel discussion on anti-conversion laws on February 28, Muralidhar asserted that these laws assume every religious conversion happens under coercion rather than free will. He pointed out that the burden of proof unfairly falls on the person accused of inducing conversion rather than on the individual who claims to have converted under force or undue influence.

“These anti-conversion laws are not really about preventing forced conversions, but about restricting an individual’s freedom of choice. They are designed to target any conversion, even one made voluntarily. The assumption is that if a person leaves their religion of birth, it must be due to some form of coercion.”

Dalits and Minorities Unfairly Targeted

Muralidhar highlighted how these laws disproportionately impact Dalits and violate privacy rights. He argued that Dalits who choose to embrace Buddhism, for instance, now have to “publicly justify” their decision before a district magistrate, subjecting them to scrutiny and potential intimidation.

“A Dalit seeking to embrace Buddhism will now have to explain their choice to the district magistrate. This turns a deeply personal decision into a public matter. After the Puttaswamy judgement on privacy, such laws should not stand constitutional scrutiny.”

He pointed out that these laws also provide wide discretion for third parties—such as relatives or even vigilante groups—to challenge conversions. This, he warned, has led to public intimidation of individuals seeking interfaith marriages or religious conversions.

Public Scrutiny and Legal Overreach

Another major issue, according to Muralidhar, is that the laws require people to announce their intent to convert, making them vulnerable to harassment.

“Personal choice is being forced into the public sphere, requiring individuals to defend their decisions against social and legal scrutiny.”

Additionally, he criticised how anyone—not just the individual allegedly forced into conversion—can file a complaint, further weaponising these laws against religious minorities and interfaith couples.

Will the Laws Change Society?

While Muralidhar believes these laws may eventually be struck down as unconstitutional, he questioned whether that would bring real change.

“The real victory will be when we transform as a society, overcome our prejudices, and truly embrace constitutional values.”

His remarks come as multiple petitions challenging anti-conversion laws are pending before the Supreme Court. The debate over these laws continues, with critics arguing that they are being misused to harass minorities, while supporters claim they protect religious integrity.