The Anti-Conversion and Freedom of Religion Acts of several states, which eight state laws regulate, have been challenged before Supreme Court by the National Federation of Indian Women.

The PIL, which was filed via AoR Aakarsh Kamra, contests laws passed by the governments of Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand.

It claims that the legislation' too wide definition of "allurement" encompasses valid and natural ambitions that influence or actuate human decisions for marriage.

It also takes issue with the inclusion of women in these statutes as a "vulnerable class." It asserts that such categorization with distinct (increased) punishment is irrational and without a rational connection to any lawful purpose.

Such categorisation, it is said, has an unfavourable effect on women and their right to autonomy and provides "arbitrary legal sanction to extensive State interference into people's private lives and decisions, in a full violation of the right to privacy and human dignity."

According to the argument, the challenged laws prohibit the free exercise of the right guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution and suffer from the vices of ambiguity and overbreadth in the definition of criminal offences, both of which have a significant negative impact on personal freedom. Additionally, it claims that these laws have resulted in "bullying, harassment, and violence" against interfaith marriages at the hands of family members or vigilante groups.

It adds, "Insofar as they permit, legitimise and provide legal sanction to unwarranted interference, by family members or community vigilantes, into intimate and personal life choices, such as one’s choice of religion or marital partner, are constitutionally untenable and ought to be set aside."

It "is a result of a stereotypical notion that women are ‘weaker’ partners in a marriage, lacking in capacity and competence to make independent decisions. Such notions when reinforced by statutes promote gender stereotypes that are prejudicial...The impugned laws deny women agency by subjecting their marriage and/or conversion to legal scrutiny on the whim and fancy of her relatives and parents, even if the concerned adult woman has no complaint against the marriage and/or conversion."

On Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, where it was decided that a person's decision is an integral aspect of dignity, reliance is put. 

The argument concludes by arguing that the challenged rules are constitutionally untenable because they prevent the "free movement of consciousness across religions," whether it be through marriages between people of different faiths or voluntary conversions. Thus, it requests that all eight of the statutes be ruled invalid and unconstitutional. "The criminalization of consensual conduct between adult individuals which does not cause any harm to others nor is contagious to society is unconstitutional, and to that extent the definition of allurement in the impugned Act is unsustainable in law and deserves to be struck down."

Case Title: National Federation of Indian Women v. Union of India & Ors.