India, March 11 -- The Maharashtra cabinet last week cleared a draft anti-conversion bill, which makes it mandatory to seek permission from a competent authority before converting to another religion. Activists allege the bill violates constitutional rights, targets interfaith marriages, and burdens converts with proving innocence. Advocate Lara Jesani from the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), who has represented many interfaith couples, spoke to Jyoti Punwani about these concerns. Edited excerpts: This Anti-Conversion Bill was preceded by a vitriolic campaign against minorities, including propaganda about alleged cases of "love jihad" by Muslim men, and "forced conversions" by Christians. Government representatives have said this law will be stricter than the already problematic anti-conversion laws that exist in BJP-ruled states. But there is no information on what necessitated such a law. Is there really any such epidemic of forced conversions in our state, or is this just an attempt to appease the Hindutva organisations pushing for this law? For instance, rallies on "love jihad" intensified in Maharashtra following the 2022 Shraddha Walkar case, even though the couple was not married and there was no forcible conversion. In fact, Shraddha had refused to heed her father's pleas to come back. Yet, this case was used to push the demand for an anti-conversion law. Yes, both women and men (though in lesser proportion), do convert to marry. However, they are adults making this decision of their own choice, and they have a Constitutional right to do so. If there is fraud or intimidation being used to convert anyone, there are provisions in our penal laws for such crimes. Thanks to these laws, there has been an increase both in police crackdowns against Christians alleging forcible conversion, as well as vigilante attacks on priests and Adivasis. These laws have also been misused against interfaith couples after false reporting by vigilante groups or family members. Hindu-Muslim marriages already face a lot of opposition - these laws have made the plight of such couples worse. I have received queries from couples living in states where these laws are in force, regarding whether they can solemnise their marriage under the Special Marriage Act (SMA) outside these states, even when there is no opposition from their families. Many couples have postponed marriage and some have moved out from the state just to be together. Our first demand is that the bill be made public so we as citizens can provide inputs. There is a need to study whether such a law is necessary in the first place and even if it is, to formulate one that does not end up violating legitimate rights or targeting citizens. We hope this process is followed before the bill is tabled. The Opposition should also play its part by questioning the proposed law and demanding its review. For many young couples, religious differences do not matter. In such secular unions, I have seen each partner respect and even embrace the spouse's culture and religion. Many parents too are ready to accept such unions. Anti-conversion laws only make it more unsafe for such couples, and could lead to more young people being unable to access their right to marry, and enter secular unions. For a secular country, this should not be acceptable. The State is supposed to protect citizens' Constitutional rights, not violate them....