MUMBAI, Oct. 23 -- The Bombay High Court on Thursday held that while individuals are free to change their religion, conversion solely for the purpose of marriage cannot be permitted. The court also observed that a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Act, 2026, lacked the foundational facts necessary for judicial consideration. "This is just to maintain the secular fabric of society. The State is only concerned with coercion or religious conversion by force. Anyone has the freedom to change their religion. But just for the purpose of marriage, conversion cannot be permitted," a division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna said while refusing to entertain a petition filed by a 70-year-old Islamic scholar. The bench declined to consider the petition in the absence of specific factual pleadings and granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh plea supported by facts. Maulana Halimullah Farooque Ahmed Khan had challenged the Act, arguing that while the state could legitimately enact measures to prevent conversions brought about by force, fraud or other means, certain provisions of the legislation "travel beyond this permissible objective". Maharashtra in July became the 12th state to notify an anti-conversion law. The legislation criminalises religious conversions allegedly carried out through force, allurement, fraud, inducement or marriage, making such offences cognisable. Its provisions also cover interfaith marriages where conversion is alleged to have occurred through such means, particularly when objections are raised by either party's family. The petition, filed through advocate Mateen Shaikh, contended that the Act's definitions of "allurement" and "unlawful conversion" are vague and subjective, giving prosecuting authorities excessive discretion. It argued that this could lead to the criminalisation of legitimate charitable, educational, humanitarian and religious activities, while having a "chilling effect" on constitutionally protected speech, religious propagation and association. The plea also argued that the state cannot subject consensual interfaith relationships, marriages or voluntary changes of faith to surveillance or heightened scrutiny merely because the individuals concerned profess different religions. "Choice of a life partner and the decision concerning one's faith constitute facets of personal autonomy, dignity, privacy," the petition adds....