New Delhi, Feb 2: The Supreme Court on Monday sought responses from the Centre and 12 states, including Rajasthan and Arunachal Pradesh, on a fresh PIL filed by the National Council of Churches in India challenging the validity of their respective anti-conversion laws.
The National Council of Churches in India (NCCI), represented by senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, also sought a stay on the operation of these state laws.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took note of the submissions of the NCCI and sought responses from the Centre and 12 state governments within four weeks.
Ordering tagging of the fresh pleas with the pending ones, the CJI said a three-judge bench would hear them together.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that similar petitions are pending which challenge the state laws. “Our reply is ready and will be filed shortly,” the law officer said.
Arora said that Odisha and Rajasthan have also come out with their separate laws, and they were not under challenge in earlier petitions. “There are amendments also in other Acts which are not challenged. Let me serve all the standing counsels,” she said.
“Issue notice. Let a copy of each be served on Advocate Generals (of states) also. Let a counter affidavit (of the Centre and 12 states) be filed within four weeks. Let respondents file a common counter affidavit. Having regard to the importance, let it be placed before a three-judge bench,” the bench said in the order.
The counsel for the Christian body said that a few state laws are such that it “incentivises vigilante groups to complain” against so-called conversions, and hence many complaints are being filed.
The law officer opposed the submissions and said that these laws are covered by a five-judge SC bench judgement.
Besides the Centre, the bench also issued notices to Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and Himachal Pradesh.
On September 16, 2025, the top court had sought the stand of several states on other pending pleas seeking a stay on their respective anti-conversion laws.
The bench had made clear that it would consider the prayer for staying the operation of such laws once the replies were in.
It was hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws enacted by several states.
The court had appointed advocate Shrishti as the nodal counsel for the petitioners and advocate Ruchira as the nodal counsel for the respondent states to streamline communication in the case.
Previously, the Centre had raised questions over the locus standi of activist Teesta Setalwad’s NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace in challenging the contentious state laws regulating religious conversions due to interfaith marriages.
Alleging that the NGO allows its name to be used “at the behest of some selected political interest”, the Union of India claimed it was guilty of collecting huge funds by exploiting the agonies of riot-affected people.
“From a series of judicial proceedings, it is now established that the petitioner 1 allows its name to be used through its two office-bearers at the behest of some selected political interest and also earns out of such activity,” the Ministry of Home Affairs had said.
The apex court on January 6, 2021, agreed to examine certain new and controversial laws of states like Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand regulating religious conversions due to interfaith marriages.
The Uttar Pradesh law relates not only to interfaith marriages but also to all religious conversions and lays down elaborate procedures for anyone who wishes to convert to another religion.
The Uttarakhand law entails a two-year jail term for those found guilty of religious conversion through “force or allurement”. The allurement can be in the form of cash, employment or material benefits.
The plea filed by the NGO alleged that these legislations violate Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution, as they empower the state to suppress an individual’s personal liberty and freedom to practise the religion of his choice. (PTI)
