The Goa Government’s proposal to introduce an anti-conversion law deserves a serious and balanced public debate. While the State has a legitimate interest in preventing conversion through force, fraud, coercion or unlawful inducement, the law must not restrict the constitutional freedom of conscience. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to reasonable limitations. In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court upheld laws against conversion by force, fraud and allurement, while clarifying that the right to propagate religion does not include a fundamental right to convert another person. Therefore, Goa’s proposed legislation should specifically target unlawful conversion, not conversion itself. An adult must remain free to change religion voluntarily based on personal conviction, spiritual belief or conscience. Terms such as “allurement,” “inducement,” “undue influence” and “coercion” must be precisely defined to prevent misuse. The law must be religion-neutral, protect legitimate religious and charitable activities, and contain safeguards against false complaints. Goa’s tradition of communal harmony must be preserved. The Constitution should remain the ultimate safeguard: Prevent forced conversion, but never criminalise genuine freedom of conscience.
PAUL PEREIRA, Majorda
