India's Love Jihad Laws: Interfaith Couples Persecuted by the State

Last updated: 5 October 2026

Photo: शशांक म्हसवडे - The bride, groom and their family members go through myriad emotional moments.

Since 2020, several Indian states have passed India love jihad laws. These laws criminalize interfaith marriage, especially between Hindu women and Muslim men. Officially, they are called "anti-conversion laws." In practice, they turn the state itself into the persecutor of interfaith couples. Hindu-Muslim couples now face arrest, detention, and forced separation. This is not the work of non-state actors. It is state policy, backed by police and courts.

For asylum decision-makers, this matters. When the state itself is the source of persecution, internal relocation rarely works. Claims based on religion, gender, and membership of a particular social group (PSG) have a strong legal basis. Our expert witness team supports legal practitioners with country evidence and analysis for interfaith couple cases from India.

Background: The "Love Jihad" Conspiracy Theory

"Love jihad" is not a legal term. It is a conspiracy theory. Hindu nationalist groups claim that Muslim men marry Hindu women with the goal of converting them to Islam. According to this theory, interfaith marriage is part of a plan to change India's religious balance. There is no evidence for this claim. Multiple government inquiries have found no organised "love jihad." In 2020, the Minister of State for Home Affairs told Parliament that the term "is not defined under the extant laws."[1]

Despite the lack of evidence, the idea has been weaponized. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and related groups use it to target interfaith couples. Media outlets spread images of "rescued" Hindu women. Politicians give speeches warning of a threat to Hindu daughters. As a result, state governments have passed laws that treat every Hindu-Muslim marriage as a suspected case of forced conversion. Therefore, the burden shifts to the couple. They must prove that no coercion took place.

The Laws: State by State

The first major law was the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance 2020. It was later enacted as the UP Act of 2021. The law makes "unlawful" conversion a criminal offence. It defines "unlawful" to include conversion through "marriage." Penalties reach up to 10 years in prison. Moreover, 2024 amendments increased the maximum to life imprisonment in some cases.[2]

Other states followed. Madhya Pradesh passed the Freedom of Religion Act 2021. Himachal Pradesh expanded its existing 2019 law. Gujarat amended its 2003 Freedom of Religion Act in 2021 to add marriage-based offences. Karnataka passed a similar law in 2022 (later modified). Uttarakhand passed the Freedom of Religion Act 2018, with amendments adding conversion-by-marriage provisions. As of 2025, about eleven Indian states have anti-conversion laws, most targeting interfaith marriage.[3]

How the Laws Work in Practice

The laws follow a common pattern. A couple planning to marry, where one partner will convert, must give written notice to the District Magistrate (DM). In Uttar Pradesh, this notice must be given 60 days before the conversion. The DM then orders a police inquiry. Police investigate whether the conversion is "forced" or uses "allurement." Family members can file objections. Neighbours can complain.[4]

This process puts the couple's private lives on public display. In practice, Hindu right-wing groups (Bajrang Dal, VHP) monitor marriage notices. They alert the police, raid the couple's home, and pressure families. Reports show that police often arrest the Muslim partner first and ask questions later. The woman is frequently sent back to her parents or to a state-run "protection home." Meanwhile, the man can face years of pre-trial detention.[5]

The burden of proof is reversed. Under normal criminal law, the state must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, the UP Act and similar laws place the burden on the accused. The couple must prove that the conversion was voluntary. Consequently, a Muslim man can be convicted simply because he married a Hindu woman who converted to Islam. The presumption is that the conversion was coerced.

Impact on Interfaith Couples

The human cost is heavy. Human Rights Watch documented dozens of cases where interfaith couples were separated by the state. Women were forcibly returned to their parents, even as adults. In some cases, marriages were annulled. Men spent months or years in jail. Some were acquitted only after prolonged detention. Others were rearrested as soon as they were released on bail.[6]

The laws also empower families to break up marriages. Hindu parents who disapprove of a daughter's choice of husband can file a complaint under the anti-conversion law. The police will then register a case and detain the man. The woman, even if she has reached 18, is often placed under family control. In several reported cases, women who insisted on their choice were attacked by relatives. Police did not protect them.[7]

The Chilling Effect

The laws do not only affect couples who are arrested. They also scare many more from even trying. Lawyers in India report a sharp rise in couples seeking help to move to other states. Some go to Mumbai, Goa, or Tamil Nadu, where the laws are less strict. Others register marriages under the Special Marriage Act 1954, which allows civil marriage between adults of any religion. However, even this Act requires 30 days public notice — which can alert families and vigilante groups.[8]

NGOs operate safe houses for interfaith couples. The organisation Dhanak of Humanity provides legal aid and shelter. Courts have given some protection. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that adults have the right to choose their partner. In Shafin Jahan v Asokan K.M. [2018] (the "Hadiya case"), the Court said the right to marry is part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. But in state courts, judgments often favour the family. As a result, couples face long legal battles.

The right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable. The absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith.
Supreme Court of India, Shafin Jahan v Asokan K.M. (2018), para 87

State Persecution — Not Private Violence

A critical legal point for asylum claims is that these cases involve state persecution. The state itself passes laws. State police enforce them. State courts apply them. The harm does not come only from private actors such as hostile relatives or Hindu nationalist mobs. It comes from the government. This matters for the 1951 Refugee Convention test.

Under the Convention, persecution must be either by state actors or by non-state actors against whom the state is unable or unwilling to provide protection. In India love jihad law cases, the state is itself the persecutor. Therefore, there is no requirement to show that the state failed to protect. Moreover, internal relocation is limited. Although some states have no anti-conversion law, family and community networks cross state borders. Police in other states often cooperate with home-state requests.[9]

International Criticism

International bodies have criticised the laws. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief raised concerns in 2021. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommended designating India as a "Country of Particular Concern" in part due to these laws. The European Parliament passed a resolution in 2022 expressing alarm about the human rights situation for religious minorities in India. The UN Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations on India, urged the government to repeal discriminatory laws and protect freedom of religion and the right to marry.[10]

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented specific cases in detail. Freedom House's 2024 report on India downgraded the country from "Free" to "Partly Free," citing the anti-conversion laws as one factor. Reporters Without Borders noted that journalists covering interfaith cases face harassment. This evidence base strengthens asylum claims. For detailed country analysis, see our country reports.

Implications for Asylum Claims

For asylum practitioners, cases from interfaith couples in India can be framed under several Convention grounds. Religion is the most direct. The couple, especially the Muslim partner, is targeted because of their faith. Gender is also relevant. Women are controlled by law, family, and state, and denied the right to choose. Particular social group is the strongest ground. "Interfaith couples in India" is a defined group with immutable characteristics — the identity of the partner — and faces state-sponsored persecution.[11]

Key evidence to assemble includes: marriage certificates, FIRs or police records, threatening messages from relatives, news articles about the couple, and expert country reports. The asylum guide explains how to build a well-documented case. Decision-makers should apply the lower standard of proof in asylum law. Moreover, they should assess risk not only from the state but also from Hindu nationalist groups operating with state tolerance. Evidence from human rights reports is essential for country-of-origin information.

Conclusion

India love jihad laws are not a neutral response to forced conversion. They are a tool of state persecution against interfaith couples, especially Hindu-Muslim couples. The laws reverse the burden of proof, criminalize private choices, and make the state itself the persecutor. For women, they add a new layer of control over the right to choose a partner. For Muslim men, they bring the real risk of prolonged detention and violence. For decision-makers in asylum cases, the legal picture is clear. When a government passes laws that imprison people for whom they marry, the test of persecution under the 1951 Refugee Convention is met.

The international response has been slow but is growing. UN bodies, the European Parliament, and respected NGOs have raised the alarm. Courts in India have occasionally intervened. However, the laws remain in force. Arrests continue. Couples continue to flee. The expert witness service at The Human Rights Centre supports lawyers and NGOs building cases on behalf of affected couples. Freedom to marry is a basic human right — not a crime.