By Dr Yumri Taipodia, Columnist
ITANAGAR: A fresh call has been made for the repeal of the Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act, 1978 (APFRA), with arguments centring on individual freedom of conscience, constitutional rights and the changing social realities of the state.
The call comes amid a broader debate over whether legislation enacted nearly five decades ago remains appropriate in its present form and whether its objectives can be achieved through existing legal provisions.
APFRA was enacted against the backdrop of concerns over the preservation of indigenous cultures, traditions and social harmony in Arunachal Pradesh. One of its stated purposes was to address religious conversions brought about through force, fraud or inducement.
While acknowledging the concerns that led to the legislation, advocates for repeal argue that its continued operation requires closer examination, particularly in light of constitutional protections relating to freedom of religion and individual autonomy.
Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees citizens the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limitations relating, among other things, to public order, morality and health.
A central concern raised by critics of APFRA is the interpretation and application of terms such as “inducement” and “allurement”. They argue that broad or unclear terminology could create uncertainty over activities such as charitable work, education, healthcare and humanitarian assistance undertaken by religious organisations.
According to this view, measures intended to prevent coercive or fraudulent conversions should be narrowly targeted at unlawful conduct rather than creating uncertainty around voluntary religious choices.
The debate also raises questions about individual autonomy. The decision to adopt or change a religion is regarded by repeal advocates as a deeply personal matter connected to freedom of conscience. They contend that government regulation should prevent coercion and fraud without unnecessarily interfering with voluntary decisions made by individuals.
Supporters of legislation regulating religious conversion, however, have historically pointed to the need to safeguard indigenous traditions and maintain social harmony in a culturally diverse state. These concerns remain an important part of the debate over the future of the legislation.
The repeal argument also rests on the changing circumstances of Arunachal Pradesh since the law was enacted in 1978. Increased education, connectivity, social mobility and engagement with wider national and international debates have transformed the state’s social landscape over the past several decades.
Advocates of repeal therefore argue that legislation introduced in a substantially different social and political context should be reassessed against present-day constitutional and societal realities.
Another issue raised is whether existing laws are sufficient to address coercion, fraud or other unlawful conduct associated with religious conversion. Those calling for repeal contend that criminal and civil laws already provide mechanisms to address such conduct and that additional legislation may therefore require reconsideration.
At the same time, any assessment of APFRA would need to take into account the precise scope of existing laws, the statutory framework governing religious conversion in Arunachal Pradesh and the manner in which the Act has been interpreted and implemented.
The debate, advocates say, should not become a confrontation between religious or social communities. Instead, it should provide space for discussion among indigenous groups, religious organisations, civil society, legal experts and policymakers.
Among the alternatives proposed are stronger enforcement of laws against coercion and fraud, greater public awareness, interfaith dialogue and measures to strengthen trust among different communities.
The repeal campaign argues that protecting cultural identity and maintaining social harmony need not come at the expense of individual freedom of conscience. Conversely, concerns about cultural preservation and social stability remain part of the policy considerations surrounding the legislation.
The central question, therefore, is whether APFRA in its existing form continues to provide an appropriate legal framework for Arunachal Pradesh or whether its objectives can be achieved through a framework that provides clearer safeguards for both cultural interests and individual constitutional freedoms.
The call for repeal ultimately seeks a wider public and legislative discussion on the future of the 1978 Act, with the stated objective of ensuring that the state’s legal framework remains consistent with contemporary constitutional values while addressing legitimate concerns relating to coercion, fraud and social harmony.
