The constitutional question these laws raise is where propagation ends and conversion begins. Article 25 protects the right to propagate religion, and in Rev. Stainislaus the Supreme Court read that as a right to transmit one's beliefs, not a right to convert another person — the reasoning on which state anti-conversion statutes rest. The contested element in the newer laws is procedural rather than penal: a requirement to give the district magistrate 60 days' notice makes an intended conversion a matter of public record before it occurs, and critics argue this exposes individuals to pressure and effectively places the burden of justifying a private choice on the convert. With Maharashtra the thirteenth state to legislate, the cumulative effect is that a substantial share of India's population now lives under some form of conversion regulation.