Press Release: The Bishops of Maharashtra belonging to Western Region Bishops' Council statement on Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026. Posted on behalf of Western Region Bishops' Council

March 19, 2026

Joint Press Release

Strong Protest Against the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026

We, the Bishops in the State of Maharashtra, register our deep disappointment and strong protest against the so-called Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act 2026, recently passed by the Maharashtra Assembly. Far from safeguarding religious freedom, this law, in its present form, effectively undermines the very right it claims to protect, i.e., the freedom to choose and profess one’s religion, as guaranteed under Articles 19, 21, and 25 of the Constitution of India.

The provisions of the Act amount to a direct and unjustified interference in the legitimate religious practices of the Catholic Church, particularly its Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) programme. 

We thank all those who have opposed this bill.  However, it is equally disheartening that the ruling party along with a few others have backed this bill without adequate consultation with the communities most affected by it.  Past governments, including that of Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, upheld the democratic tradition of engaging in dialogue with stakeholders before enacting laws impacting religious communities. Such a consultative approach is glaringly absent here.  

Chapter III, Section 6 of the Act mandates that any individual intending to convert must submit a notice sixty days in advance to the Competent Authority. It further empowers the authorities to initiate a police inquiry into the “intention, purpose, or cause” of the proposed conversion if objections are raised or suo moto. This provision intrudes deeply into the personal domain of conscience and belief, opening the door to scrutiny, suspicion, and harassment. This section like most sections in the Bill, are manifestly arbitrary and this section is violative of an individual’s right to privacy protected by Article 21 as recognised by Supreme Court in the judgement of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India.

The Catholic Church has consistently opposed forced conversions. Its own Canon Law (Canon 865 §1) explicitly requires that an adult seeking baptism must do so freely and after proper instruction. The RCIA process, which typically spans several months, is designed precisely to ensure that individuals make a well-informed and voluntary decision regarding their faith.

However, under the present law, even such a carefully discerned and freely chosen conversion could be easily challenged. If family members, who may naturally oppose such a decision, raise objections, the clergy and others involved in the process risk being accused of coercion or of “brainwashing” as mentioned in 2(p) of the bill.  In such circumstances, they face the threat of severe and disproportionate penalties, including imprisonment of up to seven years and heavy fines, despite the absence of any wrongdoing. This effectively criminalises legitimate religious activity and places an unreasonable burden on both the individual and the religious institution. The shifting of the burden of proof on the accused, the lack of deterrent punishment on false allegations, and the broad, ambiguous language of the Act raise serious concerns regarding arbitrariness and potential misuse, as has been the case in other States. This is violative of both Article 25 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 

A close reading of the Act suggests a troubling lack of neutrality. Rather than promoting harmony, it risks fostering suspicion, division, and injustice. The law appears to disproportionately affect minority communities, raising serious concerns about its intent and application.

The Catholic Church has always stood in support of the nation’s progress, unity, and integrity. It has worked alongside governments in building a just and inclusive society. However, when legislation departs from constitutional principles and adopts a partisan or coercive character, it becomes necessary to raise a principled voice of dissent.

We therefore strongly oppose this Act in its current form and call for its immediate withdrawal or substantial revision. Religious freedom is not a concession granted by the State; it is a fundamental right that the State is bound to respect, protect, and uphold.

In the interest of justice, constitutional integrity, and the protection of fundamental rights.

✠ Elias Gonsalves

Chairman, WRBC                                         

Archbishop of Nagpur

✠ John Rodrigues

Archbishop of Bombay

✠ Sebastian Vaniyapurackal

Archeparchy of Kalyan

✠ Thomas D’sousa

Secretary of WRBC

Bishop of Vasai

 ✠ Lancy Pinto

Bishop of Aurangabad

✠ Simon Almeida 

Bishop of Poona

✠ Ephrem Nariculam

Eparchy of Chanda

✠ Malcom Sequeira

Bishop of Amravati

✠ Matthews Mar Pochomio

Eparchy of Khadki

✠ Agnelo Pinheiro

Diocese of Sindhudurg

✠ Savio Fernandes

✠ Stephen Fernandes

✠ Allwyn  D'Silva

Auxiliary Bishops of the Archdiocese of Bombay