In response to growing concerns about religious freedom, churches in Maharashtra, India, have begun requiring worshippers to sign consent forms. This move comes as the state becomes the latest to enact an “anti-conversion” law, sparking fear among the Christian community.
Approximately 4,000 churches in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region are now implementing this practice, according to a report from The Straits Times.
The consent forms, stored in church offices, serve as evidence for police or government officials if needed, explained Pastor Sam Mathai from Vasai in the nearby Palghar district, as reported by Rediff.
Protestant and evangelical congregations introduced these forms as a precaution before Maharashtra’s 2026 Freedom of Religion Act, which is now in effect, according to UCA News.
Devdan Tribhuvan, President of the Maharashtra Christian Development Association, noted that attendees must confirm their participation is voluntary and free from coercion. The declaration aims to prevent false accusations of forced conversions.
The law, effective after presidential approval and a gazette notification on July 30, prohibits conversions through marriage, undue influence, or deceit, among other means. Violators may face up to ten years in prison, and those planning to change faiths must notify a district magistrate 60 days prior, with failure to do so risking a seven-year sentence.
Christian leaders warn that the law could be misapplied to falsely accuse Christians of conducting conversion activities under the guise of prayer gatherings.
Pastor Mathai highlighted 11 attacks on churches in recent months, notably in Nalasopara, Bhayander, Palghar, and Vasai-Virar, attributed to unannounced intrusions by Hindu nationalist groups.
Dolphy D’Souza, spokesperson for the Bombay Catholic Sabha, described the consent forms as a minimal safety measure against potential legal challenges, while some churches have also installed CCTV cameras for additional security.
Nigel Barrett from the Archdiocese of Bombay called the self-declaration a necessary precaution, though lamented that worshippers must affirm their attendance is by choice.
Manoj Kumar Sharma, joint police commissioner for law and order, reported relative calm in Mumbai aside from a few incidents affecting Christians and stated that authorities have warned individuals found disturbing services.
On August 24, twenty organizations, including religious and women’s rights groups, condemned the law as an overreach into personal freedoms and an impediment to practicing and propagating faith, placing undue burden on the accused to prove innocence.
D’Souza contended, “Fraudulent or coercive religious conversions are already punishable under Indian criminal codes,” suggesting these laws are politically motivated tools for targeting religious minorities.
John Dayal, spokesperson for the All India Catholic Union, argued that such statutes are designed to consolidate a Hindu majority electoral base rather than genuinely prevent conversion, with Maharashtra’s version being particularly severe.
Anti-conversion laws exist in 12 other Indian states, primarily governed by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, and their legality is being challenged in the Supreme Court by church groups.
Christians represent 2.3% of India’s 1.4 billion population, and 0.96% or over 1 million of Maharashtra’s 129.5 million residents, with half a million Catholics in the Bombay Archdiocese alone.
While anti-conversion laws have been present since the 1980s, enforcement has increased recently, coinciding with political gains by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s party.
In Uttar Pradesh, which enacted its law in 2020, legal support groups report around 200 pending cases against Christians involving over 800 individuals, including pastors and worshippers.
Additionally, India’s government has proposed amending the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act to allow asset seizures when foreign-funding licenses expire. Of 52,000 registered charities, over 22,400 have lost such licenses, with Christian charities among the first to protest. This amendment has drawn criticism from U.S. lawmakers like Rep. Riley Moore and Sen. James Risch.
This article was originally written by www.christiantoday.com
