If Freedom Is for Everyone, Why Is a Christian's Freedom Treated with Suspicion?
A Constitutional Question India Cannot Afford to Ignore
India proudly describes itself as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. The word “secular” was expressly added to the Preamble by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment.
But what does secularism actually mean?
It means that the State does not belong to one religion. It means that a citizen's religious identity should not determine the degree of freedom he or she enjoys. It means that the Constitution protects the believer, the convert, the non-believer and the person who changes his or her faith.
Most importantly, Article 25 of the Constitution declares that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
That raises an uncomfortable question:
If an Indian citizen is genuinely free to choose almost every major aspect of his or her life, why should choosing or changing one's religion be treated as something requiring special suspicion from the State?
The Growing Network of Anti-Conversion Laws
A number of Indian states have enacted laws generally described as Freedom of Religion Acts or anti-conversion laws.
Among the BJP-ruled states, such legislation exists in states including Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Rajasthan. Maharashtra's Freedom of Religion legislation was also enacted in 2026. Arunachal Pradesh has an older Freedom of Religion law dating from 1978, whose implementation has become a major subject of controversy in recent years.
These laws are not identical. Most governments defend them as measures against conversion by force, fraud, coercion or improper inducement.
There is an obvious legitimate purpose here: nobody should be forced to change religion. Nobody should be deceived into changing religion. Nobody should be threatened into changing religion.
That principle deserves universal support.
But the constitutional question begins when legislation goes beyond preventing coercion and starts placing the private conscience of an adult citizen under governmental suspicion.
Several state laws have included requirements such as advance declarations to government authorities, police inquiries, public notices, restrictions concerning interfaith marriage and provisions shifting the burden of proof onto the accused.
That deserves serious democratic scrutiny.
Consider the Freedoms We Take for Granted
An adult Indian citizen can generally choose his or her political beliefs.
A citizen can support the BJP.
Another can support the Congress.
Another can support the Communist parties.
Another can support a regional party.
Another can support no political party at all.
Subject to the Constitution and ordinary laws, a citizen can vote for the candidate of his or her choice, express political opinions, participate in political activity and peacefully campaign for a political cause.
Why?
Because freedom of conscience and expression are fundamental to democracy.
The same principle applies to education.
A young Indian can aspire to become a doctor, engineer, teacher, lawyer, scientist, artist, priest, entrepreneur, farmer or anything else permitted by law.
A person may choose a profession and change careers.
Again, the State does not normally demand:
“Before you decide what you want to study, report your intention to the District Magistrate.”
Why should the exercise of religious conscience automatically invite such extraordinary scrutiny?
What About Marriage?
An adult citizen has a constitutionally protected interest in choosing a spouse.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized individual autonomy, privacy, dignity and decisional freedom under Article 21.
Two consenting adults from different communities may fall in love.
A Hindu may marry a Christian.
A Christian may marry a Muslim.
A Muslim may marry a Hindu.
Two people belonging to different castes may marry.
The Constitution does not say that a citizen must obtain the government's permission before falling in love.
Yet when religion becomes involved, some laws have created special procedures and criminal consequences around interfaith relationships and conversions.
This creates an important question:
Is religious freedom genuinely equal if choosing another faith—or marrying someone of another faith—automatically places the citizen under a higher level of governmental suspicion?
What About the Freedom Not to Believe?
A secular Constitution must protect not only believers but also non-believers.
A citizen may believe in God.
Another may follow Hinduism.
Another Christianity.
Another Islam.
Another Sikhism, Buddhism or Jainism.
Another may follow another religious tradition.
And another may say:
“I do not believe in God.”
The State cannot demand that every citizen possess the same religious conviction.
That is the very essence of freedom of conscience.
Article 25 begins with precisely that concept: freedom of conscience.
And conscience is not something the government manufactures.
It belongs to the individual.
Then Why Should a Change of Religion Be Treated Differently?
Suppose an adult Indian citizen studies Christianity and becomes convinced that the Christian faith is true.
Suppose he reads the Bible.
Suppose she attends a Christian prayer meeting.
Suppose they speak with Christians.
Suppose, after freely considering the matter, they decide:
“I believe in Lord Jesus Christ. I want to become a Christian.”
Where is the crime?
If there is force, punish the force.
If there is fraud, punish the fraud.
If there is criminal coercion, punish the coercion.
If someone deliberately deceives another person, the law already has powerful tools to deal with deception.
But if an adult exercises genuine freedom of conscience, why should the mere change of religion be treated as inherently suspicious?
That is the constitutional question that deserves an answer.
The Supreme Court Has Already Drawn an Important Distinction
There is an important legal distinction that critics of anti-conversion legislation should not ignore.
In the 1977 Rev. Stainislaus judgment, the Supreme Court held that Article 25 protects the right to propagate religion but does not create a fundamental right to forcibly convert another person. The Court upheld laws directed at conversion by force, fraud and inducement.
Therefore, a responsible constitutional criticism cannot simply say:
“Every anti-conversion law is unconstitutional.”
That is too broad.
The more serious question is:
Does a particular law merely prevent force, fraud and coercion—or does it unnecessarily interfere with the voluntary exercise of an individual's freedom of conscience?
That distinction is crucial.
And it is precisely why the newer laws deserve judicial and public scrutiny.
The Problem of Vague and Overbroad Powers
Some of the newer legislation uses concepts such as “allurement,” “inducement,” “undue influence,” “misinformation,” “propaganda” and similar terminology.
The problem is not necessarily that these concepts can never be regulated.
The problem is how broadly they are defined and how they are enforced.
Imagine a Christian charity providing education to a poor child.
Imagine a Christian hospital treating a poor patient.
Imagine a Christian organisation providing food during a disaster.
Imagine a Christian speaking publicly about the Gospel.
Imagine someone saying:
“My faith in Lord Jesus Christ changed my life.”
These activities must not automatically become grounds for suspicion that someone is attempting an unlawful conversion.
Otherwise, the line between legitimate religious propagation and criminalised religious activity becomes dangerously blurred.
Indeed, some state laws have generated precisely these constitutional concerns. Petitions challenging anti-conversion laws in several states have reached the Supreme Court, with petitioners arguing that some provisions are vague, overbroad and capable of excessive police discretion.
The Rajasthan Example
The Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025 is a particularly important recent example.
The law prohibits conversion through various means including force, coercion, undue influence, allurement, misinformation, online solicitation and certain marriage-related circumstances. It also contains significant criminal penalties. The Act came into force in October 2025.
A Rajasthan High Court judgment in September 2026 also acknowledged the constitutional position that conversion itself is an individual's choice, while holding that the State may prohibit conversion through the particular unlawful means specified by the legislation.
This is precisely why the debate must be more sophisticated than simply calling every such statute “illegal.”
The real issue is:
How far may the State go in regulating the exercise of conscience before regulation itself begins to undermine religious liberty?
And Then Comes the Question of Christians
This is where the issue becomes particularly painful for India's Christian community.
If Christianity is a legally recognised religion in India...
If Christians are equal citizens...
If the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience...
If Article 25 protects the right to profess, practise and propagate religion...
If adults have the freedom to make deeply personal decisions about their lives...
Why are Christians so frequently portrayed as people who must be watched whenever religion is discussed?
Why are pastors, evangelists, missionaries and ordinary Christian believers sometimes accused of “conversion” merely for conducting prayer, distributing religious literature or speaking about their faith?
Why should a Christian charitable activity automatically generate suspicion?
Why should an adult who freely embraces Christianity be treated as though he or she must have been deceived?
And most importantly:
Why should the voluntary decision of a fellow Indian to follow Lord Jesus Christ be considered a threat to society?
These are not merely questions for Christians.
They are questions for every Indian who believes in the Constitution.
Freedom Must Not Become Selective
A democracy cannot operate on the principle:
“Your freedom is protected as long as you remain within the religion into which you were born.”
That would not be genuine freedom of conscience.
That would be freedom by birth certificate.
A secular democracy must allow a person to remain in the religion of his or her parents.
It must also allow a person to leave that religion.
It must allow a person to embrace another religion.
And it must allow another person to reject religion altogether.
Otherwise, the word “conscience” in Article 25 becomes almost meaningless.
What About Drinking and Smoking?
There is an important qualification here.
Adults may legally consume alcohol or tobacco where state law permits it and subject to age and other restrictions. But drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes is not itself a fundamental constitutional right in the same sense as freedom of conscience.
This distinction matters.
We should not weaken the constitutional argument by claiming that every personal choice is a fundamental right.
The stronger argument is that certain freedoms—particularly conscience, expression, privacy, dignity, association and personal autonomy—receive constitutional protection.
Religion belongs directly within that constitutional framework.
Secularism Must Protect the Minority—and the Majority
There is another important point.
Defending religious freedom does not mean attacking Hinduism.
India's constitutional secularism does not require hostility toward Hindu religious traditions.
Hindus must have the freedom to practise Hinduism.
Christians must have the freedom to practise Christianity.
Muslims must have the freedom to practise Islam.
Sikhs must have the freedom to practise Sikhism.
Jains, Buddhists and members of other faiths must have the same freedom.
And atheists must have the freedom not to believe.
The Constitution does not ask citizens to agree about God. It asks the State to treat citizens equally despite their beliefs.
The Dangerous Road of Religious Suspicion
The greatest danger is not merely one particular Act or one particular government.
The greater danger is a political culture in which a citizen's religion becomes a matter of governmental suspicion.
Today the question may be:
“Why did this Hindu become a Christian?”
Tomorrow another government could ask:
“Why did this Christian become a Hindu?”
Another could ask:
“Why did this Muslim become an atheist?”
If the State acquires excessive power over the conscience of citizens, no religious community can permanently assume that it will always be the beneficiary of that power.
Governments change.
Political parties change.
Majorities change.
Minorities change.
But the Constitution remains.
The Constitution Must Be Bigger Than Politics
Political parties will come and go.
Governments will come and go.
Chief ministers will come and go.
But India's Constitution is supposed to protect the citizen from the arbitrary power of the State.
That is why Article 25 does not say:
“Hindus shall have freedom of religion.”
It says:
“All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience.”
Those words are extraordinarily important.
All persons.
Not Hindus alone.
Not Christians alone.
Not Muslims alone.
Not the majority alone.
Not minorities alone.
All persons.
So, Why Are Christians Being Persecuted?
The answer cannot simply be that every prosecution under an anti-conversion law is persecution. Some allegations may involve genuine criminal conduct, and legitimate crimes must be investigated regardless of religion.
But neither should the opposite extreme be accepted: that every accusation of unlawful conversion automatically proves that Christianity or Christian activity is criminal.
Where Christians are attacked, threatened, arrested without proper basis, prevented from peacefully worshipping, or harassed merely because of their faith, those incidents deserve investigation and condemnation.
Religious liberty must protect the Christian who wants to remain Christian, the person who freely becomes Christian, and the person who chooses another faith.
The constitutional principle is beautifully simple:
The State may regulate criminal conduct.
The State may punish force and fraud.
The State may maintain public order.
But the State must not become the master of a citizen's conscience.
One Final Question for Every Indian
Imagine that tomorrow a government tells you:
You may believe what you want—but before changing your belief, you must explain yourself to the government.
Would you still call that complete freedom of conscience?
Now imagine that the government tells your neighbour:
You may practise your religion—but your religious activity will be viewed with suspicion if someone might potentially be influenced by it.
Would you still call that complete religious freedom?
And finally, imagine that your fellow citizen freely tells you:
“I have found my faith in Lord Jesus Christ.”
Should the Constitution protect that citizen—or should the State decide whether that personal conviction is acceptable?
India's answer to these questions will reveal whether secularism is merely a word in the Preamble—or a living constitutional promise.
The real test of religious freedom is not whether the majority is allowed to practise its religion.
The real test is whether the individual is free to follow his or her conscience—even when that choice is unpopular, unfamiliar or belongs to a minority.
That is the promise of constitutional India.
And that promise must belong to every Indian.
