Polity · 26 Aug 2026

Article 25 anti-conversion law

Assertion (A): Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees every individual a fundamental right to convert another person to their own religion.
Reason (R): In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court held that the right to propagate one's religion under Article 25 does not include a fundamental right to convert another person.
In light of the above, select the correct answer using the codes given below:

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A
CA is true but R is false
DA is false but R is true
This question is based on: The Burden-Shift Nobody Waited For
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 26 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, notified July 31 and effective August 28, criminalises conversion through coercion, fraud or allurement and shifts the burden of proving voluntariness onto the person facilitating a religious gathering; nine FIRs from five disruption incidents between April and July have already led pastors to pre-emptively document consent before the law's own enforcement machinery has begun.

Why for UPSC

State anti-conversion laws recur across GS2 current affairs and UPSC's Assertion-Reason format is well suited to testing whether aspirants know the precise judicial boundary the Rev. Stainislaus case drew around Article 25 - a boundary frequently misstated as an absolute right to propagate including converting others.

Prelims summary

Article 25 protects propagation of one's own religion, not a right to convert others. The 1977 Rev. Stainislaus judgment upheld state anti-conversion laws on this basis and remains the settled constitutional precedent cited in current anti-conversion legislation like Maharashtra's 2026 Act.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.