The definition of force
All the anti-conversion laws share a common definition of what constitutes "force" in forced conversions. As the Rajasthan Bill provides, the definition of 'Force' includes a show of force or a threat of injury any kind, including threat of divine displeasure or social ex-communication.
It is uncertain how this prohibition will work in practice. For example, if a religion teaches that non-adherents risk divine displeasure (as with Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), teaching this article of faith may constitute an act of force under the Act. This may be contrary to the freedom to change one's religion. As HM Seervai points out in his discussion of the right to propagate, "[a] person cannot choose if he does not know what choices are open to him (sic)". As a result of the overly broad definition of "force", a person engaging another in order to bring about his or her conversion cannot inform the potential convert what the religion teaches about non-adherents. This limits the information that may be made available to the potential proselyte. An individual cannot fully exercise his or her freedom to change religion if such information is withheld.
The definition of allurement
According to the Rajasthan Bill: 'allurement' means offer of any temptation in the form of 1) any gift or gratification, either in cash or in kind; 2) grant of any material benefit, either monetary or otherwise.
The Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Gujarat anti-conversion laws rely on an identical definition. The Orissa and Arunachal Pradesh laws are worded slightly differently: inducement shall include the offer of any gift or gratification, either in cash or in kind and shall also include the grant of any benefit, either pecuniary or otherwise.
The High Court of Orissa struck this definition down as being too vague and passing into the realm of morality. Although the High Court's decision was overturned by the Supreme Court in Stanislaus vs Madhya Pradesh & Ors, the Supreme Court did not discuss this aspect of the High Court's judgment.
The potentially broad scope of the term "allurement" is troubling. Christian groups have expressed concern that the provision might be used to prohibit acts of charity, as they might be interpreted as "temptations" to convert. As charitable acts are also fundamental to many religious traditions, such an interpretation may restrict the freedom of its adherents to practise their religion or religious beliefs. It is conceivable that the provision of education or medical care by religious denominations might also be interpreted as "temptations" intended to induce conversions.
The definition of fraud
The Rajasthan Bill and Gujarat Bill provide: 'fraudulent' means and includes misrepresentation or any other fraudulent contrivance. The Acts in Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh Acts state: 'fraud shall include misrepresentation or any other fraudulent contrivance'.
Once more, the imprecision of this definition is apparent. To take an extreme example, if an individual was told they would feel closer to God upon conversion and the converted person did not subsequently experience this degree of spirituality, would this constitute 'misrepresentation'? The legislation provides no guidance about how such a definition should be understood, and potentially it is extraordinarily wide in scope. Indeed, the very idea of the concept of "fraud" in the context of religious belief is fraught with peril for a secular form of government. How can a court adjudicate "fraud" in matters of faith without impermissibly entangling itself in the tenets of a religion?
The prohibition of conversions
All of the anti-conversion acts prohibit conversion in the following terms: No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religion to another by use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means, nor shall any person abet any such conversion.
Supporters of the laws argue they are intended to prohibit conversions or conversion attempts that are conducted by allurement, force or fraud. They suggest that such conversions are presently taking place, and that these laws are designed to criminalize such activities. The anti-conversion acts are therefore presented and titled as if their purpose were the protection of the 'freedom of religion'.
These laws, however, actually serve to infringe upon religious freedom and contradict rights protected within international agreements and the Indian Constitution. Such laws are motivated by a religious ideology driven by an irrational and insecure Hindu xenophobia that is antagonistic to religious minorities.
