The recent judgment by the Padriwala bench marks a crucial intervention in the ongoing debate over anti-conversion laws in India. While Dr RB Lal’s appeal against FIRs under Uttar Pradesh’s legislation was the immediate trigger, the court’s observations extend far beyond a single case, challenging state overreach, privacy violations, and interference in matters of faith. This judgment carries particular resonance for Goa, where communal rhetoric from political leaders has sought to stoke fear around Christian conversions and so-called “love jihad.”
At the heart of the bench’s reasoning is a recognition of the intrusive nature of state intervention in deeply personal decisions. The UP law requires the District Magistrate to initiate a police inquiry in every intended religious conversion. This transforms an individual’s right to choose their faith—a freedom protected under Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution—into a process policed and monitored by the state. By doing so, the law undermines freedom of conscience, turning private faith into a matter of bureaucratic and legal scrutiny.
The court also flagged serious privacy concerns. Statutory obligations that require public disclosure of personal details of converts are in tension with the constitutional privacy regime, as affirmed in Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017). Publicising conversion data exposes vulnerable individuals to harassment, social stigma, or even physical threats. In a climate where communal violence and intimidation remain risks, this concern is not merely theoretical.
For Goa, the implications are immediate. Chief Minister Pramod Sawant and other leaders have invoked alarmist narratives about Christian conversions and “love jihad,” framing interfaith relationships as a threat to Goan identity. Such rhetoric mirrors the assumptions embedded in anti-conversion laws, portraying voluntary religious choice as suspicious or dangerous. The Padriwala judgment undermines this logic by emphasising that the state has no legitimate role in monitoring or policing individual conversions.
The Padriwala judgment serves as a reminder of constitutional limits: religious freedom and privacy cannot be subordinated to state suspicion or political fear-mongering. In Goa, where communal tensions have occasionally surfaced, the judgment is a vital affirmation that personal faith and intimate choices must remain beyond the reach of state scrutiny.
