The Goa government on Monday, August 31, decided not to table its proposed anti-conversion Bill in the Assembly, just minutes before the start of the monsoon session.
The Goa Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2026, had been listed in the day's business after being cleared by the state Cabinet barely a week earlier. But after a meeting of BJP MLAs with Chief Minister Pramod Sawant, the government decided to drop it from the agenda.
Soon after, the Department of Legislative Affairs uploaded a revised list of business, with the controversial Bill missing.
The decision came after the proposed legislation faced opposition from political parties, civil society and activist groups, the Catholic Church and, importantly, some members of the BJP itself.
The Bill had also drawn criticism because it was seen as being largely modelled on anti-conversion laws in BJP-ruled Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, with only some changes to its provisions and penalties.
What did the Goa anti-conversion Bill propose?
The proposed Goa Bill was largely based on the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, which came into effect late last month, and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, as amended in 2024.
{{/usCountry}}The proposed Goa Bill was largely based on the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, which came into effect late last month, and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, as amended in 2024.
{{/usCountry}}Under the Goa Bill, a religious conversion would be considered unlawful if it was carried out through force, coercion, undue influence, allurement, fraudulent means or marriage.
This is similar to the Maharashtra law, under which a conversion is considered unlawful if it is carried out through “force, fraud or misrepresentation, allurement or inducement, undue influence or coercion”.
The Goa Bill also proposed a system requiring a person wishing to change their religion to submit a declaration to the District Magistrate at least 60 days in advance, stating that the decision was being taken voluntarily.
The person conducting the conversion ceremony would have to give 30 days' advance notice.
Similar provisions exist in the Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh laws.
Who could file a complaint?
One of the key differences between the proposed Goa law and the Maharashtra law was who could initiate a complaint.
Under the Maharashtra law, a complaint could be filed by the person who had been converted, their parents or siblings, or relatives by blood, marriage or adoption.
The proposed Goa law, however, would have allowed any person to file a complaint or lodge an FIR.
This provision was closer to the Uttar Pradesh law.
Also read: Goa nightclub fire case: SC upholds HC order cancelling bail of club owners
What punishment did the Bill propose?
The Goa Bill proposed enhanced punishment when the person converted was a minor, a woman, a person of unsound mind or a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
In such cases, the person facilitating the unlawful conversion could face up to 14 years in prison, compared with a maximum of 10 years when the person converted did not belong to any of these categories.
Both Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh have provisions providing for harsher punishment in cases involving certain vulnerable groups, although the penalties are different.
In Maharashtra, the law provides for a maximum fine of ₹5 lakh and a minimum prison sentence of seven years in certain aggravated cases, while the fine is enhanced for an aggravated offence.
In Uttar Pradesh, punishment for unlawful conversion ranges from one to five years in ordinary cases and from two to 10 years when the person converted is a minor, woman or member of the SC/ST communities.
The proposed Goa law also contained provisions similar to those in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh under which institutions or organisations violating the law could be denied government financial aid or grants.
It also provided an exception for reconversion to a person's immediate previous religion.
Also read: Goa passes bill to drop ‘leprosy’ references from child law to eliminate social stigma
Why was there opposition to the Bill?
The proposed law faced opposition from several quarters, but one of the most significant developments was resistance from within the BJP itself.
BJP MLA Michael Lobo was one of the most vocal opponents of the Bill. Lobo said there was no question of supporting the legislation and that he had not even been given enough time to study the draft.
“In Goa all communities live in harmony and there is no record of conversions at least from the side of the Catholic Church. Churches today don’t even invite or encourage people from other faiths to take part, unlike before, and this is how it should remain. All religions should be respected,” he said.
Lobo, however, said Goa would eventually have to find a “solution” to large religious gatherings where needy people attend.
“This needs to stop,” he said.
His comments also point to one of the contentious aspects of the proposed law — the broad definitions of terms such as “allurement” and “undue influence”.
Also read: Gadkari to inaugurate elevated Goa corridor, to ease traffic to popular beaches
Why did the Catholic Church oppose it?
The Catholic Church in Goa argued that there was no need for such a law in the state and said the proposed legislation was largely a copy of laws already enacted in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh.
“No convincing evidence of widespread forced conversion in Goa has been placed before the public. Goa must not import divisive legislation merely because similar laws have been enacted in BJP-governed states,” the Church said in a statement.
The Catholic Association of Goa also welcomed the government's decision to remove the Bill from the day's business.
Its president, Cyril Fernandes, described the government's backtracking as a defeat for what he called the BJP's “divisive agenda”.
“Communal division is a national agenda of the BJP. They do it in other states because it helps them electorally. They do not care what its impact on society is. In Goa too they were attempting to implement this agenda,” Fernandes said.
He argued that such legislation would not have the same political impact in Goa as it does in some other states.
“However, such measures do not work in Goa and in other southern states. The population of the state is well educated and the state has the highest per capita income in the country. People do not like being told what to do in their private lives,” Fernandes said.
Fernandes also pointed to Goa's history of inter-community interaction, where people regularly participate in and celebrate each other's festivals.
He said the definitions in the proposed Bill were so broad that community gatherings around places of worship could potentially be interpreted as “allurement” or “undue influence”.
“This will discourage inter-community mingling around religious events and festivals and drive a wedge in Goan society,” he said.
Why is the Bill politically sensitive in Goa?
The proposed legislation also carried political risks for the BJP because of Goa's religious and electoral composition.
Christians and Muslims together account for more than 35% of the state's population and can influence electoral outcomes in around half of Goa's Assembly constituencies.
The BJP itself has seven Catholic MLAs among its ranks and also enjoys the support of two independent lawmakers.
This makes the government's decision to put the Bill on hold significant.
Unlike some other BJP-ruled states where anti-conversion laws have been politically prominent, Goa has a different social and religious composition, with communities living in close proximity and regularly participating in each other's cultural and religious events.
For the BJP government, pushing through a law that had drawn opposition not only from outside the party but also from some of its own MLAs could therefore have carried considerable political costs.
Has the Bill been scrapped?
Not necessarily.
The immediate decision was to remove the Bill from the list of business for the first day of the monsoon session. The government has not, at this stage, indicated that the proposed legislation has been permanently abandoned.
For now, however, the backtracking shows that the government faced a combination of political and social resistance to a Bill that had been cleared by the Cabinet only days earlier.
The controversy also highlights the challenge of introducing legislation modelled on laws in other states into Goa, where the government's political calculations are shaped by its distinct demographic and social realities.