Without specific facts to anchor it, a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Freedom Of Religion Act has been withdrawn from the Bombay High Court, which left the petitioner free to come back with a fresh plea.
Mumbai: A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on October 22, 2026 permitted the withdrawal of a writ petition that questioned the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026. The Bench said it was reluctant to entertain the challenge in the absence of specific factual pleadings pointing to a concrete cause of action, and clarified that the petitioner may file a fresh petition [Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Others].
Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna formed the Bench. The Court did not examine the validity of the Act, and nothing in the order should be read as a view on the merits of the challenge or of the law.
An academic challenge, the Bench said
The Bench asked how the petitioner was directly aggrieved by the Act. It noted that the petition lacked foundational facts and raised only an academic challenge.
Senior Advocate Yusuf Muchhala, for the petitioner, sought permission to amend the petition so that concrete facts could be introduced, but the Court declined the request. The petition was then withdrawn, and the Court made it clear that the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh one.
The law and the petition
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026 is an anti-conversion law. It aims to prohibit religious conversions brought about by force, fraud, coercion, allurement, misrepresentation, undue influence or marriage.
The petition was filed before the principal bench of the High Court in September 2026 by Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan, a 70-year-old Islamic teacher from Bhiwandi in Thane, through advocate Mateen Shaikh. As presented in the petition, it accepted that the State may prohibit forced or fraudulent conversion and marriages, but argued that this power cannot extend to State surveillance of consensual inter-faith relationships or voluntary conversions.
What was argued
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Yusuf Muchhala challenged the definition of “allurement” in Section 2(a) of the Act and the pre-conversion procedure in Sections 6 and 7. His submission was that the law restricts the propagation of religion protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. Section 6 requires a person to give 60 days’ prior notice before converting to another religion, after which authorities publish the notice to invite objections. Subjecting individual faith to a police inquiry, he argued, violates the fundamental right to privacy.
Critics of the law have raised similar concerns about its broad provisions, the 60-day notice and its burden-shifting provisions, particularly for voluntary conversions and inter-faith relationships. The Act’s stated purpose, on the other hand, is to prevent conversions obtained through force, fraud, coercion and similar means. The Court has not yet weighed either position.
Article 25, and the need to show who is affected
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health. Challenges to anti-conversion statutes therefore turn on where the line falls between regulating coercive or fraudulent conversion and interfering with a voluntary personal choice. Courts also generally expect a petitioner who attacks a statute to show how it affects him or an identifiable group, which is the concern the Bench voiced here.
Because liberty to file afresh was granted, the question of the Act’s validity remains open for a future petition with specific facts.
Case Title: Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Bench: Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna, Bombay High Court
Date: October 22, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Yusuf Muchhala, briefed by advocate Mateen Shaikh, for the petitioner