Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench  of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Rajasthan government on a public interest litigation (PIL) questioning the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2025. A similar petition, Dashrath Kumar Hinunia v. State of Rajasthan, was also taken up earlier by the Court, in which notice and a stay application were issued.

During the hearing, the Bench asked why the matter was not filed first before the Rajasthan High Court. In response, Ahmadi said that similar petitions on anti-conversion laws were already pending before the Supreme Court and had been transferred from other High Courts. He described Rajasthan’s statute as “the most egregious” among such enactments and remarked that the penalties under the law were “mind-boggling”, citing fines that may extend up to ₹20 lakh for “mass conversion,” defined as converting more than two persons. He further pointed out that the punishment could range “from a minimum of 20 years to life imprisonment.”

Also Read: Supreme Court: Refusing Marriage Doesn’t Constitute Instigation Under Section 107 IPC; Abetment of Suicide FIR Quashed Against Accused

The PIL, filed by advocate and researcher M. Huzaifa along with human rights activist John Dayal, challenges key provisions of the 2025 Act—specifically Sections 5(6), 10(3), 12, and 13—on the ground that they allow executive authorities to confiscate or demolish properties allegedly linked to “unlawful religious conversion” even before a judicial verdict.

Section 5(6) authorizes authorities to forfeit property after an inquiry by a gazetted officer appointed by the District Magistrate or the State Government. Section 10(3) empowers the government to permanently cancel the registration or license of any organization found violating the Act, freeze its bank accounts, confiscate property, and impose fines up to ₹1 crore.

Section 12 states: “Every such property or premises where the illegal exercise of conversion or mass conversion has taken place shall be liable to be forfeited and confiscated under the Act by the office of District Magistrate or by any other person so appointed in that regard by the State Government, after holding the inquiry.”

Section 13 allows demolition of unauthorized structures at such premises after an official inquiry and provides as follows: “If there is/are any illegal/ unauthorized construction(s)/ structure on such property or premises where the illegal exercise of conversion or mass conversion has taken place, shall be liable to be demolished after upholding the inquiry by any gazetted officer appointed by the District Magistrate or the State Government in that regard.
Explanation.-I No demolition shall be carried out without a prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided by the local municipal laws or within fifteen days' time from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later.

If such illegal/unauthorized construction(s)/structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law, the demolition shall be carried out within seventy two hours after giving a show cause notice.”

Also Read: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over Five-Year Delay, Cites Lack of Proximate Link Between Offence and Custody

The petitioners contend that these provisions enable “punitive demolitions” and collective punishment, violating Articles 14, 21, 22, and 300A of the Constitution. They argue that empowering administrative officers to execute demolitions and forfeitures without judicial oversight usurps the powers of the courts and undermines the rule of law.

They further submit that the Act attempts to give legislative backing to actions already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment prohibiting extrajudicial demolitions. Such provisions, they warn, could disproportionately affect marginalized and minority communities, threatening their rights to shelter, livelihood, and due process.

The petitioners have urged the Court to strike down the impugned sections as unconstitutional. The PIL has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Yashwant Singh.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay, Senior Advocate; Mr. Yashwant Singh, Advocate-on-Record (AOR)

Case Title: M. Huzaifa & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 1047/2025

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta