Upaksham Ramteke
Chief Executive Editor
Mumbai : Adv. Prakash Ambedkar has leveled scathing criticism against the ‘Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026,’ alleging that the proposed legislation violates the fundamental principles of the Constitution. He expressed his views on the matter via his official social media platform, ‘X’.
Adv. Prakash Ambedkar stated that this Bill—proposed with the aim of curbing religious conversions—will not withstand legal scrutiny. He clarified that the Indian Constitution grants citizens fundamental rights regarding freedom of religion and marriage; consequently, any law that seeks to restrict these rights—regardless of the justification—could be deemed unconstitutional.
He further pointed out that similar laws have been enacted in several other states across the country and are currently facing legal challenges in the courts. These matters are presently pending before various High Courts and the Supreme Court. Therefore, he asserted, questions regarding the validity of this Bill are bound to arise in Maharashtra as well.
Adv. Prakash Ambedkar noted that while the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) possesses a majority in the state legislature—meaning the Bill could potentially be passed in both the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council—its constitutional validity remains a far more critical issue.
Alleging that there are political motives behind this legislation, he contended that it is an attempt to consolidate a voter base by polarizing society along Hindu-Muslim or Hindu-Christian lines. Furthermore, he clarified that there is no need for a new, stringent law, as existing laws are already sufficient to address instances of forced religious conversion.
Adv. Prakash Ambedkar concluded by stating that, through this Bill, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the BJP are actively fueling religious polarization. Meanwhile, although the State Government asserts that the objective of this bill is to curb forced conversions and alleged ‘Love Jihad,’ the opposition is raising questions regarding its constitutional validity.
