The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Centre and 12 states on a fresh public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the National Council of Churches in India (NCCI) challenging the constitutional validity of their respective anti-conversion laws. The Christian body has also sought a stay on the operation of these laws.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took note of the submissions made on behalf of the NCCI and asked the Centre and the concerned states to file their responses within four weeks.

The PIL was filed by the National Council of Churches in India and was argued by senior advocate Meenakshi Arora. During the hearing, Arora requested the court to stay the operation of the anti-conversion laws enacted by several states, stating that these laws were being misused.

The bench ordered that the fresh pleas be tagged with similar petitions already pending before the court. While passing the order, the Chief Justice said that the matter would be heard by a three-judge bench. The court stated, “Issue notice. Let a copy of each be served on Advocate Generals (of states) also. Let a counter affidavit (of the Centre and 12 states) be filed within four weeks. Let respondents file a common counter affidavit. Having regard to the importance, let it be placed before a three-judge bench.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, opposed the plea and informed the court that similar petitions challenging state anti-conversion laws were already pending. He told the bench, “Our reply is ready and will be filed shortly.” He also argued that the issue raised was already covered by a judgment of a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court.

Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the NCCI, pointed out that some state laws and amendments had not been challenged in earlier petitions. She said that states like Odisha and Rajasthan had enacted separate laws that were not part of the previous challenges. “There are amendments also in other Acts which are not challenged. Let me serve all the standing counsels,” she said.

The counsel for the Christian body further argued that certain provisions in the state laws encouraged misuse. She submitted that some laws “incentivise vigilante groups to complain” against alleged religious conversions, which had resulted in a large number of complaints being filed.

The bench issued notices to the Centre and the governments of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh.

The court also referred to earlier proceedings in similar matters. On September 16, 2025, the Supreme Court had sought responses from several states on other pending pleas seeking a stay on the operation of their respective anti-conversion laws. At that time, the bench had clearly stated that it would consider the request for staying these laws only after the replies were filed.

The court was hearing petitions challenging the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws enacted by multiple states across the country. To ensure smoother coordination, the Supreme Court had earlier appointed advocate Shrishti as the nodal counsel for the petitioners and advocate Ruchira as the nodal counsel for the respondent states.

In earlier proceedings, the Centre had raised objections to the locus standi of activist Teesta Setalwad’s NGO, Citizens for Justice and Peace, which had also challenged state laws regulating religious conversions, especially those linked to interfaith marriages. The Union government had alleged that the NGO was acting with political motives. The Ministry of Home Affairs had stated, “From a series of judicial proceedings, it is now established that the petitioner 1 allows its name to be used through its two office-bearers at the behest of some selected political interest and also earns out of such activity.”

The Supreme Court, on January 6, 2021, had agreed to examine newly enacted laws in states such as Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand that regulate religious conversions due to interfaith marriages. The Uttar Pradesh law applies not only to interfaith marriages but to all religious conversions and prescribes detailed procedures for anyone wishing to convert to another religion.

The Uttarakhand law provides for a two-year jail term for those found guilty of religious conversion through “force or allurement.” The law defines allurement to include cash, employment or material benefits.

The plea filed by the NGO alleged that these laws violated Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution. It argued that the legislation gave excessive power to the state and allowed it to interfere with an individual’s personal liberty and freedom to practise and choose a religion of their choice.