Before the Chhattisgarh government brought the ‘Freedom of Religion Bill’ (sic!), among the strictest anti-conversion law to date, twelve states in India already have such a law in one form or the other. Indeed, it is named ‘Freedom of Religion’ to brow-beat the constitutional questions, but none of these laws have anything to do with ‘freedom’. These overhyped laws deserve to be juxtaposed with the letter and spirit of the Constitution to raise the question as to why the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution of India has not reacted against them.The lawsAiming to outlaw conversions from Hinduism to religions other than Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism, all the laws in different states create provisions against use of force or coercion (psychological pressure, physical force, threats and even social boycott and misrepresentation leading to marriage by fraudulent means), applying undue influence through allurement (monetary benefits, gifts, employment, free education or medical facilities, promises of a better lifestyle, or marriage). The laws, which focus mainly against conversion to Islam and Christianity, prescribe tough penalties in all the states; each subsequent ones are even tougher. The laws bar any person from directly or indirectly promoting or conspiring to convert another person through such illegal means.General violations under these Acts may attract imprisonment of not less than seven years, extendable to 10 years. A minimum fine of Rs 5 lakh is also recommended. In cases involving minors, women, persons with mental disabilities, or members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, punishment may range from 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment with a minimum fine of Rs 10 lakh. Viewed more strictly, mass conversions may lead to imprisonment of up to 10 years, even life. Minimum fine of Rs 25 lakh and/or life imprisonment is recommended for repeat offenders. In case public servants are found guilty, they can be punished with 10 to 20 years of imprisonment and a minimum fine of Rs 10 lakh.A careful study of the laws indicate that loose and ambiguous phrasing of the rules leave a large space for misuse by the enforcement agencies both suo motu and on political directive, but more than them by the vigilantes belonging to Bajrang Dal, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, et al to harass the minorities. Any non-Hindu institution or group making provision for a free clinic, a scholarship, even a friendly prayer meeting comes under scrutiny and legal and illegal harassment follow.Several cases of a Hindu nationalist group filing complaints and police acting quickly despite weak or non-existent proof have been noticed. Given low conviction rate arrests, court cases, and violence spoil the social harmony. The laws have appeared to become a tool not to stop conversion, but to scare the minorities. No wonder, Chhattisgarh Christian leaders have raised concerns that a ‘strict’ anti-conversion law that has replaced the 1968 legislation aims to target Christians and other religious minorities.Constitutionally SpeakingThis genuinely raises questions on the constitutional validity of such laws. It further questions as to why their constitutional anomalies have not been challenged in a court of law. Since the actions relating to them have gone to the courts at all the levels, why the judiciary has not gone into their legitimacy.The debate on the secular nature of the Indian state has not ceased since the Constitution was inaugurated on 26 January 1950. Indeed, the Indian Constitution did not mention the word ‘secular’ in its text when drafted. Indira Gandhi brought this expression in the Preamble when she brought the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution in 1976 during the emergency she imposed in 1975. While members such as K.T. Shah Tajamul Husain, and M. Masani argued in the Constituent Assembly that the state should have no connection with religion, treating it solely as an individual affair and stressed separation of state and religion, some were of the opinion that the state could not ignore significant place religion has in Indian society and in the psyche of the people. Some members were for state-led gradual secularization of society.However, as Fundamental Rights were drafted, they were placed right after defining the country’s territory and its citizenship in Part III (Articles 15-30) of the constitution. In fact, equality before law and equal protection of law guaranteed to ‘any person’ within the territory of India in Article 14, set the tone for putting adherents of all the religious faith on the same pedestal without any discrimination. They make any law and its enforcement ultra vires that discriminate among persons within the territory of India.Complementing and strengthening this provision, Article 15 stresses, ‘The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.’ Though the State retains the power to create special provisions for the disadvantaged classes, it certainly rules out discrimination on the grounds of religion. By establishing the principle of equality in public employment, Article 16 scraps religion as a criterion.Articles 25-30 unambiguously establish religious freedom in expansive and transparent sense of the word for every citizen and each community of India. ‘Freedom of conscience and profession, practice and propagation of religion’ (Article 25), ‘Freedom to manage religious affairs’ (Article 26), ‘Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion’ {emphasis added} (Article 27), ‘Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions (Article 28), ‘Protection of interests of minorities’ (Article 29) and ‘Right of minorities to establish educational institutions’. The extent and nature of religious freedom enunciated by the relevant constitutional provisions are explicit enough to question the clauses and the implementation of most of the anti-conversion laws passed to date.The framers of the constitution were not oblivious to the possibility of the wide scope of the religious freedom they were offering. The clauses and sub-clauses closely studied will clarify that protection against the use of lure and unfair means for proselytizing by any religious group has been incorporated into the constitutional provisions.A red herringThe hullabaloo against conversion takes the convert out of the analysis. The anti-conversion laws and the discourse around them create an atmosphere of immunity around those who campaign against the minorities and the prevailing freedom in the inter-community relations – interfaith marriages, interfaith social and religious interactions and so on. The false insecurity that is created through the red herring relating to conversions – which are less than 1% in the country while interfaith marriages are between 1 to 2.1 % – create biases and cause undesired violence. The prejudices travel to the enforcement agencies that apply laws with disproportionate severity against the minorities.These effectively discriminatory Acts have been imposing disproportionate hardships on non-Hindus and marginalised castes. These clearly majoritarian anti-conversion legislations act against religious diversity and create prejudice within the public institutions. The Indian state, and those who run it, should remember that India has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.Ajay K. Mehra is a political scientist and a visiting professor at the Centre for Multilevel Federalism. Earlier, he was Atal Bihari Vajpayee Senior Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi, 2019-21 and Principal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Evening College, Delhi University (2018).