We learned about the Constitution of India, the Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Parliament, the judiciary and the responsibilities of citizens in high school.
When we were in high school in the 1980s, we learned about the Constitution of India in our Social Studies classes, particularly in Civics. We learned about the Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Parliament, the judiciary and the responsibilities of citizens. We may not have understood the full significance of those lessons then, but we knew that the Constitution mattered.
I remember being taught about Article 25. We learned that it protects freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. We did not learn that an Indian may believe only what a government authority considers acceptable. We learned that conscience is personal, and that the Constitution recognises and protects it, subject to the limitations provided by the Constitution itself. (Constitution of India, Article 25.)
I do not claim to be a constitutional expert. I am simply a citizen who has come to appreciate that knowing the Constitution is important. We do not need to know every Article or understand every legal argument. But we should know enough to understand our basic rights, our responsibilities and the limits of public authority.
Perhaps it is time to return to some of those lessons.
This does not mean that the State has no legitimate authority to regulate conduct. A democratic government has a responsibility to protect people from coercion, fraud, exploitation and abuse. Laws and accountability are necessary. But the power to regulate must itself remain within the constitutional framework. That distinction matters in the present discussion surrounding the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026.
Do We Know Our Constitution Well?
There is an uncomfortable question worth asking: how many Indians have actually read the Constitution, or even know what it broadly contains? Many of us studied Civics in school and answered questions about Fundamental Rights in examinations. But after leaving school, how many of us continued to pay attention?
A person may be highly educated and professionally successful and yet know very little about the Constitution. Literacy and constitutional awareness are not the same thing. Knowing the Constitution does not mean memorising Articles and legal provisions. It means knowing that we have certain rights, that those rights have limits, that the State has powers, and that those powers also have limits. It means knowing where to look when something affects our freedom, our speech, our faith, our property or our dignity.
This is why constitutional awareness is not only for lawyers, judges, politicians or government officials. It is useful for every citizen. The Constitution is not somebody else's responsibility. It belongs to the people of India.
The Present Question
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026 seeks to prohibit conversion through force, coercion, deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, threat, undue influence, allurement and other specified means. It also regulates the procedure for lawful conversion.
The Act requires a person intending to convert, as well as a person or institution organising a conversion ceremony, to give 60 days' prior notice to the Competent Authority. The proposed conversion may be publicly notified, objections may be invited, and an inquiry may be conducted. After conversion, a declaration containing personal details must also be submitted.
The Act defines the Competent Authority as the District Magistrate or an officer authorised by the Government. It also permits the converted person, parents, siblings and other relatives by blood, marriage or adoption to lodge a complaint. These provisions move a deeply personal decision into a formal administrative and legal process.
The Act also carries serious penalties. Certain violations may attract imprisonment of up to seven years, with higher fines in specified circumstances. Repeat offenders may face imprisonment of up to 10 years and a fine of up to INR 7 lakh. Offences under the Act are cognisable and non-bailable.
The State has a legitimate interest in preventing coercion and fraud. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that the right to propagate religion under Article 25 does not include a right to convert another person by force, fraud or allurement. (See Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Supreme Court of India, 1977.)
So the question is not whether coercive or fraudulent conversion should be prevented. It should. The question is how this can be done without unnecessarily placing freedom of conscience under administrative suspicion. That is where careful public discussion is necessary.
When Ordinary Religious Life Becomes Cautious
The concerns are not entirely theoretical. Writing in India Today, journalist Dhaval S. Kulkarni reported that churches in Mumbai and surrounding areas had begun asking worshippers, including regular members and newcomers, to sign declarations stating that they were attending voluntarily and without pressure or inducement.
One can understand why churches and other religious institutions might take such precautions. They have a legitimate interest in protecting themselves and their congregations from false allegations. But it is worth pausing here.
When people attending a prayer meeting begin signing documents to establish that their participation is voluntary, something has changed in the atmosphere surrounding ordinary religious activity. It does not prove that the law will be misused. But it does show that the possibility of legal consequences is already influencing behaviour.
A law intended to prevent coercion should not create unnecessary fear around lawful religious practice. This concern has also been expressed in Indian Currents. In its 6 September 2026 issue, Fr. Gaurav Nair, writing on the Maharashtra law, raised questions about the State becoming involved in matters of personal conscience and warned of the possibility that broad provisions could be misused. John Dayal, in the same issue, similarly argued that the law risks placing voluntary faith under bureaucratic and potentially criminal scrutiny. (Fr. Gaurav Nair, “Criminalising Conscience,” Indian Currents; John Dayal, “The Targeted Hate in the Maharashtra Law,” Indian Currents, 6 September 2026.)
These are views expressed by the writers, not findings of a court. They nevertheless raise questions that deserve to be considered seriously.
Freedom of Conscience us for Everyone
Freedom of conscience is not a Christian privilege, a Muslim privilege or a privilege of any particular community. It belongs to every person. So this is a concern for every citizen.
Let us ask ourselves: if we ever decided to change our faith, would we want to seek permission from the government before doing so? Perhaps the answer becomes clearer when we imagine the question applying to ourselves. What we want for ourselves, are we also willing to allow for others?
A constitutional principle becomes meaningful when we uphold it even when it benefits someone with whom we disagree. This is why the discussion should not be reduced to the interests of minorities.
The State may regulate unlawful conduct. It may investigate allegations and prosecute genuine offences. But lawful freedom should not be burdened with unnecessary interference. This is ultimately not only about religion. It is about how we understand freedom of conscience as citizens.
But What about the Citizens?
Perhaps, we have become accustomed to leaving legal matters to lawyers, police personnel, government officials and people in authority. When a law is discussed, we say, “Let the lawyers deal with it.” When there is a dispute, we look to the police. When a constitutional question arises, we leave it to the courts.
Of course, we need all these institutions. But what about you, the citizen? Do you not have a right to know what the law says? Do you not have a right to know what the Constitution protects? You do.
You do not have to be a lawyer to understand your basic rights. You do not have to be a constitutional scholar to ask whether the exercise of public power is lawful and reasonable.
I sometimes think of a small incident while travelling through Assam. My vehicle was stopped by a police constable, who asked for the usual documents - registration certificate, insurance and pollution certificate. I handed them over. He began checking the papers carefully. Then I noticed that he was examining them upside down.
It was a small incident, and I do not draw any large conclusion from it. Police personnel have difficult responsibilities, and their work deserves respect. But the experience reminded me of something simple: holding authority does not automatically mean knowing everything.
That is why citizens cannot completely surrender their responsibility to understand the law.
Knowing our rights does not mean opposing the government. It does not mean distrusting the police or disrespecting the courts. It simply means understanding the framework within which all of us - including those exercising public authority - are expected to function.
Perhaps this is one lesson we should recover from Civics.
Law, Authority and Responsibility
The Constitution is not against the State. It establishes the institutions of government and gives the State legitimate powers to maintain public order, security and the common good. A strong constitutional State is not a weak State. It is a State whose powers are exercised within law and subject to constitutional limits.
Likewise, questioning a law is not necessarily opposing the nation. Citizens may ask whether a law is clear, proportionate and consistent with constitutional guarantees. Such questions are part of democratic life.
But citizens also have responsibilities. Criticism should be based on facts rather than rumours. Allegations should not be treated as convictions. Constitutional rights should not be used as an excuse to disregard the rights of others. The government must remain accountable, and citizens must remain responsible.
Why This Matters Beyond One Law
The Maharashtra law is therefore larger than a dispute between the State and religious
communities. India is a country of different religions, languages, cultures, traditions and philosophies. We will disagree. The Constitution provides the common framework within which those differences can coexist. The majority has the right to govern, but not unlimited power. Minorities have constitutional protections, but are not above the law. The State has authority, but that authority is not absolute. That balance is one of the strengths of the Indian constitutional system.
It is also why we should not become concerned with the Constitution only when our own community is affected. We should care about constitutional principles because they belong to all of us. If a right is worth defending, it should be defended even when the person exercising it is someone with whom we disagree.
What Can an Ordinary Citizen Do?
Perhaps the question is not only what the Government or the courts should do. We should also ask what we, as citizens, can do. We can begin by becoming familiar with the Constitution. We can read the Preamble. We can know the Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties. We can learn, at least broadly, how Parliament, the State Legislatures, the executive and the courts function.
When an important law is being discussed, we can try to find out what it actually says instead of depending entirely on social media messages, rumours or somebody else's interpretation.
We can ask questions without becoming hostile. We can disagree without becoming irresponsible. We can defend our rights while respecting the rights of others. We may not understand every legal provision. I certainly do not. But ignorance should not become our permanent excuse.
Who Will Protect the Constitution?
The Government has a responsibility. Parliament and State Legislatures have a responsibility. The judiciary has a responsibility. Political parties, the media, religious institutions and civil society also have important roles. But constitutional democracy does not operate through institutions alone. Citizens are part of it.
The Constitution was framed to provide both government and limits on government. It protects individual liberty while recognising the legitimate interests of public order, security and the common good. Keeping that balance requires care from everyone.
Laws affecting fundamental rights deserve public attention. Their objectives may be legitimate, but their provisions and implementation must remain consistent with the Constitution. Asking questions about them is not hostility towards the government. It is part of being a responsible citizen.
The Constitution is not merely a document for Parliament, lawyers and courts. It is the framework under which every citizen lives. It belongs to those who govern and those who are governed. It protects the majority and the minority. It applies to the powerful and the ordinary citizen alike.
So the question is not only whether the Government, Parliament or the courts will protect it. Who will protect the Constitution? All of us.
Meyu Changkiri