Arunachal Christian Body Warns Against Framing Rules for Anti-Conversion Law
UPSC-standard MCQs with explanations, trap analysis, and approach guide. Answer after the test — not before.
1
Easy
1
Medium
1
Hard
Practice this set
3 questions · full analysis after submission · no sign-up required
Article summary
The BJP-led Arunachal Pradesh government is moving to frame implementation rules for the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act (APFRA), 1978, following a Gauhati High Court directive issued in September 2024, prompting strong opposition from the Christian community in the state. The APFRA, enacted in 1978, prohibits conversion from indigenous faiths through force, fraud, or inducement, but has remained largely dormant for decades due to the absence of implementing rules. The Gauhati High Court's directive has now compelled the state government to act, reigniting a long-standing tension between tribal identity protection and religious freedom guaranteed under Articles 25–28 of the Constitution. Christian organisations argue that operationalising the law would infringe upon their fundamental right to propagate religion and could be used to target minority communities. This development has significant implications for UPSC aspirants studying the intersection of tribal rights, religious freedom, state legislation, and judicial oversight in India's Northeast.
What this tests
Sample questions — answers revealed after test
Q1. The Supreme Court of India, in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), made a landmark ruling concerning Article 25 of the Constitution. Which of the following most accurately captures the core holding of that judgment?
Q2. The Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978 (APFRA) was enacted nearly five decades ago but has never been operationalised. The Gauhati High Court in 2024 directed the state government to frame implementing rules. Consider the following scenarios and identify which one is most legally consistent with the constitutional position established by the Stainislaus judgment (1977) and the rationale behind APFRA: (i) A tribal community member voluntarily approaches a Christian missionary, engages with their teachings over six months, and independently decides to convert. The state, after APFRA rules are framed, initiates proceedings against the missionary. (ii) A missionary promises free school admission to tribal children contingent on the family converting, and the family converts under this arrangement. The state initiates proceedings under APFRA. (iii) A Christian NGO distributes Bibles freely in a weekly market without any conditionality. The state seeks to ban this activity under APFRA after rules are framed. (iv) An official of another religious denomination orally threatens social ostracism to a family unless they reconvert to their original faith.
Q3. Consider the following statements regarding anti-conversion laws in India, with specific reference to the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978 (APFRA) and the constitutional framework governing freedom of religion: 1. The APFRA, 1978 is the first state-level anti-conversion law enacted in India, preceding the Odisha Freedom of Religion Act, 1967. 2. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom to profess, practise, and propagate religion subject to public order, morality, and health, as well as other provisions of Part III. 3. The Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) upheld state anti-conversion laws on the ground that they fall within the state's power to legislate on public order under the State List. 4. The Gauhati High Court's 2024 directive to frame rules for APFRA is constitutionally unprecedented, as courts cannot direct the executive to exercise subordinate legislative power. Which of the statements given above are correct?