MUMBAI, March 14 -- The Maharashtra government on Friday tabled the controversial Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, aimed at curbing unlawful religious conversion. The bill, tabled in the state legislative assembly, is widely seen as an attempt to crack down on religious conversion through marriage, particularly between a Hindu woman and a non-Hindu man, which would require the woman to convert to the other religion. It's a situation dubbed by certain right-wing organisations as "love jihad", although the law does not recognise such terminology. The "Love Jihad Law" makes unlawful religious conversion a cognisable and non-bailable offence, with punishment of up to seven years' imprisonment. The most contentious provision is the 60-day notice to be given by the person intending to convert. The notice must be given to the designated authority, or the district collector, whose permission must be secured to switch faiths. Further, the conversion must be registered with the authority within 21 days, or it will be considered null and void. Under the proposed law, any religious conversion carried out through allurement, coercion, deceit, force, misrepresentation or other fraudulent means will be considered unlawful. It also defines as unlawful any religious conversion carried out through the solemnisation of marriage or a relationship by promise of marriage using such means. The bill is expected to be taken up for discussion on Monday, amid opposition from social activists and opposition parties. "We are planning to dedicate two days to debate the bill next week," said a senior BJP minister. If passed, Maharashtra will become at least the 13th state to introduce such a bill after MP, Orissa, UP, Gujarat, AP, HP, Karnataka, Uttarakhand, Tamil Nadu, Haryana, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. The bill also regards persons who assist the individual converting their faith through unlawful means as aiding and abetting the offence. This includes individuals who counsel, persuade or assist the individual, as well as those who execute, endorse or attest documents relating to such conversions. The provisions of the proposed law will likely make interfaith marriages difficult. After giving the designated authority 60 days' notice, the latter must make the notice public and invite objections within 30 days. Following this, the authority will conduct a police inquiry into the intention, purpose or cause of the proposed conversion. If the inquiry finds the conversion to be unlawful, criminal proceedings will be initiated. Individuals or institutions conducting the conversion must also submit a declaration within 21 days after the ceremony. The statement of objects and reasons of the bill says that instances of unlawful religious conversion have been increasing and are allegedly being conducted in an organised manner by certain institutions. Civil society has been vocal against the provisions that relate to prior notice and the declaration after conversion as they feel these provisions could be misused by vigilante and right-wing activists. "The declaration must include the individual's personal details including address and family details, which may be misused and jeopardise the well-being of the person who wants to convert," said a social activist. Advocate Lara Jesani of the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), who has represented numerous interfaith couples, said it is "unfortunate and undemocratic" that the bill has been introduced without making its provisions public. According to her, the government should have placed the draft in the public domain and conducted a proper public consultation before tabling it. She also questioned the intention behind the legislation, noting that it is unclear at whose insistence the law is being brought. "The Opposition should examine the bill carefully and oppose it thoroughly. The provisions in the bill could potentially be misused against minorities and women," she said. NCP (SP) leader Jitendra Awhad strongly opposed the proposed bill, stating that the protection of religion is a fundamental right guaranteed to every Indian under the Constitution and that there is no need for a new law. "If such a law had existed earlier, these rulers would have taken action against Dr B R Ambedkar, Mahavir and Saint Tukaram for denouncing and criticising their religions," Awhad said....