‘Drafted without adequate evidence or openness, this bill can’t stand,’ Sheikh asserted. He called for its referral to a Joint Select Committee and demanded extensive public input, decrying any hasty passage on such a pivotal religious freedom matter.

His stance resonated online, where he tweeted: ‘Stood against the Religion Freedom Bill in assembly. Limits Article 25, shifts proof burden to people. Lacks data—needs Joint Select Committee and public hearings.’

Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis defended the initiative robustly, insisting it’s not aimed at any faith but solely at curbing conversions driven by force, trickery, or allurement. Citing precedents in over a dozen states including Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, and Rajasthan, he framed it as essential protection.

‘Article 25 protects true faith practice, but not under duress,’ Fadnavis stated. Prospective converts must inform officials for consent checks. Violations—through intimidation, fraud, or greed—carry seven-year sentences and fines, escalating for vulnerable groups like women, children, SC/ST communities.

The legislation empowers victims, kin, or police to act, nullifying sham marriages. This development highlights Maharashtra’s push to align with national trends on religious integrity, promising vigorous debates as lawmakers weigh personal liberty against societal safeguards.

General Secretary Maulana Mohammad Fazlur Rahim Mujaddidi’s statement pulls no punches: the lyrics glorify Hindu goddesses, fundamentally opposing Islam’s core belief in the oneness of God. He invoked Tagore’s critique during independence struggles and the Constituent Assembly’s wise decision to adopt only the initial stanzas, avoiding religious discord.

Mujaddidi criticized the timing, suggesting it’s a ploy linked to electoral strategies in West Bengal, and warned against forcing religious elements on unwilling communities. Citing past judicial interventions that curtailed full recitations, he demanded immediate revocation, threatening Supreme Court action to safeguard fundamental rights under Article 25.

Details of the notification reveal a standardized 3-minute-10-second version now compulsory in schools, government ceremonies, and even presidential gatherings, with mandatory standing. As voices rise against perceived majoritarianism, AIMPLB’s resistance underscores the fragile balance India maintains between unity and diversity, potentially setting the stage for landmark legal confrontations.

During an interaction with media, Pathan clarified his position: profound respect for the song exists, yet mandating it violates constitutional rights. Citing Article 25, he underscored the right to religious practice, explaining why some Muslim verses in the anthem pose a dilemma. ‘Freedom means choice, not diktats,’ he stressed.

He drew parallels with the national anthem, where voluntary participation reflects true allegiance. Pathan condemned branding non-singers as traitors, calling it a dangerous politicization of devotion.

The AIMIM leader didn’t hold back on the BJP, accusing them of a hate-driven agenda. Shifting gears to international relations, Pathan slammed the UN report on the Red Fort explosion, demanding zero tolerance for terror outfits backed by Pakistan. Recalling tragedies like Pulwama and 26/11, he lambasted India for engaging in cricket with a terror-sponsoring nation. ‘Government indifference to our martyrs is unforgivable,’ he charged.

On Mumbai mayor’s anti-infiltrator rhetoric, Pathan called it a distraction from real governance failures—rising pollution, crumbling roads. ‘Voters elected her for solutions, not scapegoating,’ he pointed out, questioning the lack of evidence on infiltrators.

Finally, on Latur’s communal tensions, Pathan warned of a toxic atmosphere fueled by BJP rhetoric. ‘Immediate stern measures against provocateurs are essential,’ he concluded, advocating for unity over division.