[ Yomli Mayi ]
One of the most fundamental questions that arise regarding the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act (APFRA), 1978 is: Why must an individual inform the administration to exercise their faith? Faith is deeply personal, and the very essence of religious freedom lies in one’s ability to choose, practice, and even change their religion without external interference. While some argue that just as we obtain an ST (Scheduled Tribe) certificate from the administration, we should also inform the authorities about our faith. This comparison raises critical concerns. Unlike caste or tribe, which are administrative categories used for governance and welfare policies, faith is a matter of personal conviction and conscience. Linking it to bureaucratic procedures creates an unnecessary barrier to the fundamental right to religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution.
The APFRA has recently become a topic of heated discussion within various communities in Arunachal, and rightly so. Although the Christian community has been at the forefront of opposing this Act, the concerns raised should not be seen as exclusive to any single religious group. This law should be debated and challenged collectively by all communities, as it affects the very principles of religious freedom, individual autonomy, and secularism.
There are several concerns pertaining to this issue.
Firstly, the right to freedom of religion (Article 25) includes the right to profess, practice, and propagate one’s faith. While the state can regulate religious conversions to prevent coercion or fraud, criminalising voluntary conversions through bureaucratic oversight contradicts the spirit of Article 25. Furthermore, the requirement to report conversions also infringes upon the right to privacy (Article 21) as affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy judgement (2017).
Secondly, one of the major issues with the Act is the requirement for individuals to report their religious conversion to the district administration under Section 5(1). This provision not only creates an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle but also raises concerns about privacy and potential state interference in personal religious choices. In a democratic country that upholds secularism, an individual’s decision to embrace a faith should not be subject to administrative scrutiny.
Thirdly, the Act prohibits conversion through ‘force’,’fraud’, or ‘inducement’, but these terms are vaguely defined and open to subjective interpretation. For instance, could acts of charity or social service by religious organisations be considered ‘inducement’? Could a personal testimony about one’s faith be seen as an ‘attempt to convert’? Such broad and unclear definitions leave room for misuse and selective targeting of certain religious communities.
Fourth, while the preservation of indigenous traditions is important, a state law should not favour one set of beliefs over another, as India’s secular framework requires the government to remain neutral in religious matters. The selective approach of the Act raises questions about whether it is genuinely aimed at preventing coercion or if it is designed to restrict the spread of certain religions.
Fifth, the punishment under the Act (imprisonment of up to two years and a fine of Rs 10,000 for converting someone through ‘inducement’ or ‘fraud’) adds to the fear that religious conversions – whether voluntary or not – might be viewed as illegal or suspicious. Additionally, the fact that offences under this Act are cognisable (meaning the police can arrest without a warrant) raises concerns about possible misuse, harassment, and wrongful targeting of religious minorities.
Why this should be a concern for all communities
While the Christian community has been vocal about its concerns, this is not just an issue for one group -it is a fundamental rights issue that should concern every religious and non-religious person in Arunachal. Today, it may be one community facing scrutiny, but tomorrow, any faith group or individual could be affected by the same restrictive provisions. A law that limits religious freedom ultimately sets a dangerous precedent that threatens pluralism, coexistence, and individual rights.
Need for review and reform
Instead of restricting religious freedom through excessive regulations and penalties, the government should focus on laws that genuinely protect individuals from forced conversions without infringing upon voluntary choices. A better approach would be ensuring clear and precise definitions of force, fraud, and inducement to prevent misuse; removing the requirement to inform the administration about one’s conversion, as faith should be a personal matter and respecting the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution; and adopting a truly secular approach that does not selectively protect one set of beliefs while restricting others.
In a diverse and democratic society like India, faith should not be monitored, controlled, or reported – it should be a free and personal choice. While the intent of preventing coercion is understandable, the APFRAin its current form raises serious constitutional concerns that cannot be ignored. It is time for a broader, collective conversation on religious freedom that goes beyond individual communities and focuses on protecting the rights of all people. (The views expressed are personal.)
