The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench has dismissed criminal proceedings against four individuals accused of forced religious conversion. The court ruled that the acts, which took place in 2025, could not be prosecuted under the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, because the law was enacted only in August 2026.
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has set aside an FIR and chargesheet filed against four individuals accused of attempting to induce religious conversion. Presiding over the matter, Justice M.W. Chandwani determined that the state had failed to establish sufficient legal grounds to support the criminal charges, highlighting a lack of evidence regarding malicious intent to insult religious feelings under the penal code.
A significant factor in this decision was the timing of the alleged incident. The events in question occurred in 2025, well before the introduction of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, which officially came into force on August 28, 2026. The court clarified that the charges could not be applied retroactively to acts committed before the statute existed. Consequently, the court found no legal basis to sustain the proceedings.
The prosecution had alleged that the accused promised financial support, educational funding, and housing in exchange for religious conversion. The court, however, distinguished between the promotion of one’s faith and the disparagement of another, ruling that the actions in question did not meet the legal threshold for insulting religious sentiments. Furthermore, the court noted that the prosecution failed to obtain the mandatory government sanction required to initiate the legal proceedings.
This ruling arrives amid ongoing public and legal debate regarding the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026. The new legislation, which aims to regulate religious conversions and prohibit unlawful 'allurement,' is currently facing constitutional challenges in the High Court. Critics and petitioners have expressed concerns that the Act’s broad definitions, particularly concerning what constitutes allurement, may lead to excessive regulatory scrutiny.
For entities operating in sensitive sectors—such as charitable trusts, educational organizations, and social welfare institutions—this regulatory landscape introduces a layer of compliance uncertainty. The interpretation of the new Act's provisions regarding financial assistance and social discourse remains a key monitorable. Investors and observers tracking these sectors may watch for future judicial interpretations or potential amendments, as the ongoing legal challenges could influence how the Act is enforced in the coming months.