In October 2025, the Gujarat High Court issued a judgment interpreting the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003 (as amended) in a way that a person who was earlier a “victim” of forced or induced religious conversion could nonetheless be prosecuted if they later abet or instigate conversions of others.

This shift raises serious concerns about constitutional liberties, especially the autonomy and religious freedoms of individuals.  

The High Court held that even if conversion was initially obtained by force, allurement, or fraud, a person cannot claim immunity from prosecution if they engage in further acts of influencing, pressuring, or inducing conversions.  

Key Legal Provisions of the Gujarat Act & Issues Raised

Original intent and scope of the Act

The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act was first enacted in 2003 to regulate and restrict religious conversions obtained through force, allurement, or fraud.  

It defined “allurement” broadly (material benefits, gifts, temptation) and “force” to include not just physical coercion, but social or spiritual coercion.  

It required procedural safeguards: prior consent (from the District Magistrate) before conversion and notice thereafter.  

 

2021 Amendments — Expansion and tightening

In 2021, the Act was significantly amended. Key changes included making conversion by marriage a prohibited act, substantially expanding the definitions of “unlawful conversion,” and increasing punishments.  

The amended sections include 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A etc., creating more stringent restrictions, criminal liability for mass conversions, conversion of vulnerable persons (minor, scheduled castes/tribes), etc.  

One controversial change is reversing the burden of proof in Section 6A, requiring the accused to show that no force or allurement was used.  

 

The High Court’s reasoning & implications in the recent judgment

The court emphasized that individuals who are alleged to be “victims” of wrongful conversion are not automatically immune from criminal liability if they later abet or instigate conversions of others.  

It clarified that victimhood does not confer immunity if the person subsequently participates (directly or indirectly) in converting others.  

The Court observed:
“Had those persons, after getting converted, not engaged in any activity of further converting other persons, they could have been said to be victims … However, … on account of their act of influencing and pressuring and alluring … a prima facie offence is made out against them.”  

Thus, even if someone was forced or lured into conversion, if they later act in converting others, they may be prosecuted under the law.  

 

Relationship with earlier stays / interfaith marriages

In August 2021, Gujarat’s courts had issued an interim stay on the most controversial provisions of the amendments, protecting consensual interfaith marriages from criminal proceedings under the Act, in the absence of allegations of force, allurement, or fraud.  

The recent decision does not overturn that stay. Rather, it narrows its scope, particularly by focusing on cases where coercion, inducement, or abetment is alleged.  

The judgment deals with distinct facts: those already converted and later alleged to have engaged in further conversions.  

 

Constitutional and rights-related concerns

The CJP article argues that this broad interpretation interferes with freedom of religion (Article 25), right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), and autonomy in private and marital matters.  

The reversal of burden of proof (Section 6A) puts social and financially vulnerable persons at a structural disadvantage.  

The decision may deter voluntary religious association, practice, conversions, or marriages between people of different faiths.  

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s review of anti-conversion laws may have to address whether the expanded liability is consistent with constitutional guarantees.

 

Conclusion (as per the article)

The Gujarat High Court’s decision ventures into new territory by making previously coerced converts potentially liable if they later engage in conversions of others.  

While respecting the earlier stay for certain interfaith marriages, the decision does expand the law’s reach, increasing legal risks for individuals, especially minorities and vulnerable persons.  

The constitutional challenge will have to grapple with individual choice, religious freedom, and fairness in enforcement.  

If you like, I can also fetch the full text of that Gujarat High Court judgment (if available) or provide a legal critique. Would you like me to do that?