Bombay High Court Permits Withdrawal of Plea Challenging Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, Allows Fresh Petition
The Bombay High Court has permitted the withdrawal of a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, allowing the petitioner to approach the court again with a fresh and more comprehensive plea. The order was passed on October 22, 2026, by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna.
The petition was filed by Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahemed Khan, a 70-year-old Islamic teacher from Bhiwandi in Thane district. He had challenged several provisions of the legislation, arguing that they could interfere with constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom, individual privacy and personal autonomy.
During the hearing, the bench questioned whether the petition contained sufficient factual details demonstrating how the legislation had directly affected the petitioner. The judges observed that a constitutional challenge should explain the practical consequences of the law rather than raise legal objections in the abstract.
The petitioner’s counsel, senior advocate Yusuf Muchhala, sought permission to amend the existing petition to incorporate additional facts. However, the court declined that request, following which the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the case and file a fresh petition.
The bench allowed the withdrawal and granted liberty to approach the court again. It also emphasised the importance of explaining the actual repercussions of enforcing the legislation. The court noted that two prosecutions registered in Pune under the Act had not been brought to its attention in the original petition.
The challenge questioned Sections 2(a), 3, 6, 7 and 9 of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026. The petitioner argued that these provisions could violate Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), 21, 25, 26 and 29 of the Constitution, which protect various rights relating to equality, freedom of expression, association, life and personal liberty, religious freedom and cultural interests.
Particular objections were raised against Section 6, which requires a person intending to convert to another religion to provide 60 days’ prior notice to the authorities. The petition argued that publicising such notices and inviting objections could expose deeply personal religious decisions to scrutiny and interfere with the right to privacy.
The petitioner also challenged the definition of “allurement” under the legislation and questioned whether its provisions could extend beyond conversions obtained through force, fraud or coercion. His argument was that the state could regulate unlawful or coercive conversions but should not impose restrictions that interfere with voluntary changes of faith.
The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, seeks to prohibit religious conversions brought about through force, fraud, coercion, allurement, misrepresentation, undue influence or marriage. Its provisions have prompted debate over the balance between preventing unlawful conversions and protecting individual freedom of conscience.
During the hearing, the bench stressed the need for concrete facts demonstrating how the legislation had affected the petitioner’s ability to practise or propagate his religion. The court’s observations came in the context of examining whether the original petition provided an adequate factual basis for constitutional scrutiny.
The withdrawal does not amount to a judicial ruling on the validity of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026. The legislation’s constitutionality remains open to challenge, and the petitioner has been permitted to return to the High Court with a fresh petition containing specific facts and details about the law’s alleged impact.
The case highlights the importance of establishing a clear factual basis when challenging legislation on constitutional grounds. Any future proceedings will provide an opportunity for the court to examine the objections in the context of concrete circumstances and the legal protections guaranteed by the Constitution.
