How does the Supreme Court's intervention in cases of religious conversion laws reflect the balance between individual rights and state interests?

The Supreme Court’s intervention in cases related to religious conversion laws highlights the complex balance between safeguarding individual rights, such as freedom of religion, and allowing the state to regulate matters in the interest of public order and social harmony. This judicial scrutiny is crucial as such laws often raise concerns about possible infringement of constitutional rights.

• Protection of Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court ensures that laws enacted by states do not violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
• Doctrine of Proportionality: The Court examines whether state restrictions on religious conversion are reasonable and proportionate, ensuring that state action does not lead to excessive or arbitrary curtailment of personal freedoms.
• State’s Power to Regulate: While individuals have the right to practice and propagate religion, the state can enact laws to prevent conversions by force, fraud, or inducement to maintain public order and protect vulnerable sections.
• Judicial Review: The Supreme Court reviews the constitutionality of such laws, seeking responses from state governments to ensure that legislative measures do not become tools for discrimination or harassment.
• Balancing Competing Interests: Through its interventions, the judiciary attempts to strike a balance—protecting citizens' autonomy in matters of faith while permitting the state to curb malpractices that could threaten social harmony.
• Case-by-Case Approach: The Court often assesses the specific provisions and their implementation, looking for evidence of misuse or violation of rights before passing judgments or issuing directives.