17/03/2026
We proudly wear the title “𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐭𝐫𝐚.” In a single breath we invoke the names of Shahu, Phule, & Ambedkar. However, it is truly painful that a law which undermines the progressive nature of Maharashtra is being introduced in the legislature of this very state.
If Maharashtra is indeed progressive, then why is the 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 being restricted?
𝐊𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐲𝐚 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐚 𝐏𝐡𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫-𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬. Today, through this law, an attempt is being made to abandon the very ideals of Mahatma Phule.
On one hand, this bill has been named “𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐭𝐫𝐚 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 - 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔.”
However, ministers in the government themselves are referring to it in the media as an 𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢-𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐰, thereby creating a different perception.
If this was the perception they intended to create, then the law itself should have been named an 𝐀𝐧𝐭𝐢-𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐋𝐚𝐰.
But the government is well aware that giving such a name would be inconsistent with the 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Under 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝟐𝟓 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, objections would likely be raised in the Supreme Court regarding the very title of the bill.
Even the state’s 𝐋𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 would not approve such a name.
Whenever a law or policy is framed, its social context must also be considered. However, while drafting this law, the social realities appear to have been deliberately ignored.
Under this law, a person intending to convert their religion is required to 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝟔𝟎 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞.
But once such notice is given, & after the administration invites objections to this notice, 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧?
If 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫,
