Poonam Sharma

In recent years, the Indian judiciary has faced criticism for its seeming alignment with specific political ideologies, especially regarding issues that pertain to Hindu interests. A specific example of such a perception is the statement made by retired Justice S. Muralidhar regarding anti-conversion laws, which has fueled debates regarding the role of the judiciary in framing religious and cultural dynamics in India.

In a panel discussion held by ADF India on February 28, 2025, retired Orissa High Court Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar characterized the anti-conversion laws passed in different states as “anti-choice.” According to him, these laws assume that any religious conversion has to be the outcome of coercion and thus violate an individual’s fundamental right to freedom of choice. Justice Muralidhar pointed out that such legislation compels individuals to publicly justify their personal religious decisions, subjecting them to potential public scrutiny and humiliation.

In addition, he emphasized that such laws disproportionately target marginalized groups, particularly Dalits. For instance, a Dalit individual who wanted to convert to Buddhism would be asked to publicly declare their intention and explain their decision to a district magistrate, thus infringing on their privacy and personal choice.

The power of the judiciary goes beyond parliamentary affairs; it has a great deal of influence on religious practices and interpretation. Research has indicated that Indian courts have deliberately taken up issues relating to Hinduism, at times stepping into traditional religious practices in the name of reform. Such interventions in the name of promoting social justice do more to precipitate controversy over the judiciary going beyond its role and interfering with religious freedom. 

There is an increasing sense that some judicial verdicts follow the ideology of Hindu nationalism. For example, critiques indicate that courts have sometimes sided with policies in favor of Hindutva, the ideology of Hindu political and cultural dominance. This seeming concurrence makes the judiciary seem non-neutral and compromised in its position in a secular state. 

The convergence of religion, law, and politics in India is complex. Judicial pronouncements tend to have long-lasting consequences for religious groups and observances. Whereas the judiciary’s role is to interpret the law, its orders can impact values and norms within society, and at times reaffirm or conflict with dominant religious ideologies. Such a dynamic only serves to heighten the necessity of ensuring judicial neutrality in order to preserve the secular nature of the country.

The debate on anti-conversion laws and the role of the judiciary in religious affairs accentuates the sensitive balance between law, personal liberties, and religious practices in India. As society debates, it is important for the judiciary to tread these challenges with care so that its verdicts reflect constitutional principles and ensure the rights of all citizens, regardless of religious affiliations.