The Allahabad Excessive Court docket final week ordered the daddy of two grownup sisters and the Uttar Pradesh Authorities to collectively pay ₹25 lakh compensation after holding that the ladies had been illegally confined at their parental dwelling following their resolution to transform from Hinduism to Islam.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain handed the order whereas permitting a habeas corpus petition regarding Diya Bhatia @ Zoya Diya Bhatia (20) and Anshu Bhatia @ Amina Anshu Bhatia (35).
The order was handed after two ladies advised the Court docket that they’d voluntarily embraced Islam, Anshu in 2020 and Diya in 2021, out of their very own religion, conscience, psychological peace and religious solace. They categorically denied that their choices had been the results of pressure, fraud, coercion, undue affect, inducement, or allurement.
They alleged that their father subsequently confined them within the parental dwelling in opposition to their needs due to their resolution to alter their religion.
After interacting with each ladies, the Court docket recorded that their responses had been “spontaneous, coherent and unequivocal” and that nothing emerged to point that both of them was appearing beneath coercion, worry, inducement or undue affect.
The Court docket held that each ladies, being majors, had full authorized capability to make choices regarding their lives.
It noticed thus:
“As soon as a person attains majority, the Structure recognises her autonomy to take choices regarding religion, perception, residence, affiliation and each different aspect of non-public liberty, topic solely to restrictions sanctioned by regulation“.
Referring to Article 25 of the Structure of India, the Court docket noticed that the expression ‘freedom of conscience’ essentially encompasses the fitting of a reliable grownup to undertake, resign or change her religion in accordance along with her personal free will, perception and conviction.
The Court docket mentioned such a selection is an important aspect of particular person autonomy, dignity and private liberty, protected beneath Articles 21 and 25. Neither the State nor the household can ordinarily dictate or intervene with such an intensely private resolution besides inside constitutionally permissible restrictions and the authority of regulation, it mentioned.
The State, however, opposed the habeas corpus petition because it referred to an FIR lodged by the daddy of the ladies alleging forcible and deceitful conversion from Hinduism to Islam.
The FIR was initially registered beneath Part 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Throughout investigation, Sections 61(2), 111(3), 111(4) and 152 of the BNS, together with Sections 3/5(1) and 5(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Illegal Conversion of Faith Act, 2021, had been added.
The State argued that the alleged conversion shaped half of a bigger organised conspiracy having ramifications for the “sovereignty, integrity and unity of the nation”, and that releasing the ladies may prejudice the continuing investigation.
The Excessive Court docket, nonetheless, discovered that the query of whether or not the conversion complied with the 2021 Act couldn’t justify their continued confinement.
The Court docket noticed that the legality of the conversion and the legality of their detention represent two distinct and impartial points.
It additional remarked thus:
“Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the alleged conversion has not been effected strictly in accordance with the process contemplated beneath the Act of 2021, such an assumption, by itself, wouldn’t authorise the continued confinement of two grownup ladies by their father in opposition to their needs”.
The Court docket mentioned the legality of the conversion may very well be examined by the competent discussion board, whereas the legality of their detention fell inside its jurisdiction within the habeas corpus proceedings.
The Court docket was additionally not impressed with the State’s submission that the alleged conversion threatened the sovereignty, integrity or safety of the nation.
It famous that, other than broad assertions based mostly on the FIR and the pending investigation, no materials had been positioned earlier than it to display that the ladies’s voluntary train of spiritual selection, by itself, constituted such a risk.
“Mere apprehensions, nonetheless critical they might seem, can’t substitute legally admissible materials whereas adjudicating upon the basic rights of residents“.
Nevertheless, the Court docket clarified that the investigation into the FIR would proceed strictly in accordance with regulation and stay uninfluenced by its observations within the current proceedings.
The Excessive Court docket particularly discovered that the ladies had been unwillingly confined of their parental dwelling and prevented from exercising their impartial selection as a result of they’d embraced a distinct religion.
Justice Jain noticed that upon attaining majority, parental authority has to yield to constitutional liberty and particular person autonomy.
“Any restraint upon the motion or liberty of such individual, besides lawful authority, would represent unlawful confinement and quantity to a direct infringement of the basic rights assured by the Structure,” the Court docket remarked.
The Court docket additional noticed that any restraint upon the motion or liberty of a serious particular person, besides beneath lawful authority, would represent unlawful confinement and instantly infringe the basic rights assured by the Structure.
It concluded that such confinement can’t obtain the “imprimatur of regulation and is manifestly violative of their constitutional rights”.
The Court docket accordingly held that the detention was wholly unlawful and with none sanction of regulation and that the Court docket had the obligation to revive their liberty.
Importantly, in its 22-page order, the Court docket additionally discovered faults with the State equipment for failing to guard the ladies’s liberty.
The Court docket remarked that the State, as a substitute of securing their launch, had permitted the unlawful detention to proceed beneath the quilt of the felony proceedings and had, by its acts of omission and fee, “lent tacit help to the continued deprivation of the basic rights” of the ladies.
Discovering an “exceptionally grave and egregious violation of constitutional rights“, the Court docket held that the case warranted exemplary constitutional compensation.
The Court docket remarked thus:
“The Structure doesn’t confer upon mother and father a licence to incarcerate their main youngsters merely as a result of they disapprove of their religion, beliefs or private decisions…Constitutional rights can’t be eclipsed by parental authority, social morality or majoritarian sentiment”.
Towards the backdrop of those observations, the Court docket mentioned that each the ladies had been free to reside at anyplace and with any individual of their very own selection, with out interference from their father, the State or another individual.
The daddy and the State of Uttar Pradesh had been held collectively and severally liable to pay ₹25 lakh compensation, to be equally divided between them, inside eight weeks.
The daddy was restrained from interfering with their private liberty, motion, residence, occupation or non secular decisions.
He was additionally directed handy over their passports, academic certificates, identification paperwork, financial institution passbooks, cheque books, conversion-related paperwork and different private belongings inside seven days.
The State authorities had been directed to make sure that no interference was brought on of their peaceable life and liberty and to offer safety, if required.
The Court docket, nonetheless, clarified that its observations had been confined to the problem of unlawful detention and wouldn’t quantity to a discovering on the deserves of the felony case or the legality or validity of the alleged non secular conversion.
Advocate Ali Bin Saif, assisted by Advocates Kaif Hasan, Mr. Mohd. Abubakar, Mohd. Areeb Masood, Mr. Faraz Khan and Mr.Dinesh Kumar Yadav, appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
Extra Advocate Common Manish Goyal, assisted by AGA Pankaj Saxena, appeared on behalf of the State-respondent.
Case title – Kunwar Sultan Ali & 2 Others vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 558
Case Quotation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 558
