Allahabad High Court Orders ₹25 Lakh Compensation For 2 Sisters Illegally Confined By Father After Conversion To Islam
The Allahabad High Court last week ordered the father of two adult sisters and the Uttar Pradesh Government to jointly pay ₹25 lakh compensation after holding that the women were illegally confined at their parental home following their decision to convert from Hinduism to Islam.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain passed the order while allowing a habeas corpus petition concerning Diya Bhatia @ Zoya Diya Bhatia (20) and Anshu Bhatia @ Amina Anshu Bhatia (35).
The order was passed after two women told the Court that they had voluntarily embraced Islam, Anshu in 2020 and Diya in 2021, out of their own faith, conscience, mental peace and spiritual solace. They categorically denied that their decisions were the result of force, fraud, coercion, undue influence, inducement, or allurement.
They alleged that their father subsequently confined them in the parental home against their wishes because of their decision to change their faith.
After interacting with both women, the Court recorded that their responses were "spontaneous, coherent and unequivocal" and that nothing emerged to indicate that either of them was acting under coercion, fear, inducement or undue influence.
The Court held that both women, being majors, had full legal capacity to make decisions concerning their lives.
It observed thus:
"Once an individual attains majority, the Constitution recognises her autonomy to take decisions relating to faith, belief, residence, association and every other facet of personal liberty, subject only to restrictions sanctioned by law".
Referring to Article 25 of the Constitution of India, the Court observed that the expression 'freedom of conscience' necessarily encompasses the right of a competent adult to adopt, renounce or change her faith in accordance with her own free will, belief and conviction.
The Court said such a choice is an essential facet of individual autonomy, dignity and personal liberty, protected under Articles 21 and 25. Neither the State nor the family can ordinarily dictate or interfere with such an intensely personal decision except within constitutionally permissible restrictions and the authority of law, it said.
The State, on the other hand, opposed the habeas corpus petition as it referred to an FIR lodged by the father of the women alleging forcible and deceitful conversion from Hinduism to Islam.
The FIR was initially registered under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. During investigation, Sections 61(2), 111(3), 111(4) and 152 of the BNS, along with Sections 3/5(1) and 5(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, were added.
The State argued that the alleged conversion formed part of a larger organised conspiracy having ramifications for the “sovereignty, integrity and unity of the nation”, and that releasing the women could prejudice the ongoing investigation.
The High Court, however, found that the question of whether the conversion complied with the 2021 Act could not justify their continued confinement.
The Court observed that the legality of the conversion and the legality of their detention constitute two distinct and independent issues.
It further remarked thus:
"Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the alleged conversion has not been effected strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act of 2021, such an assumption, by itself, would not authorise the continued confinement of two adult women by their father against their wishes".
The Court said the legality of the conversion could be examined by the competent forum, while the legality of their detention fell within its jurisdiction in the habeas corpus proceedings.
The Court was also not impressed with the State's submission that the alleged conversion threatened the sovereignty, integrity or security of the country.
It noted that, apart from broad assertions based on the FIR and the pending investigation, no material had been placed before it to demonstrate that the women's voluntary exercise of religious choice, by itself, constituted such a threat.
"Mere apprehensions, however serious they may appear, cannot substitute legally admissible material while adjudicating upon the fundamental rights of citizens".
However, the Court clarified that the investigation into the FIR would proceed strictly in accordance with law and remain uninfluenced by its observations in the present proceedings.
The High Court specifically found that the women had been unwillingly confined in their parental home and prevented from exercising their independent choice because they had embraced a different faith.
Justice Jain observed that upon attaining majority, parental authority has to yield to constitutional liberty and individual autonomy.
"Any restraint upon the movement or liberty of such person, except lawful authority, would constitute illegal confinement and amount to a direct infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution," the Court remarked.
The Court further observed that any restraint upon the movement or liberty of a major individual, except under lawful authority, would constitute illegal confinement and directly infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
It concluded that such confinement cannot receive the “imprimatur of law and is manifestly violative of their constitutional rights”.
The Court accordingly held that the detention was wholly illegal and without any sanction of law and that the Court had the duty to restore their liberty.
Importantly, in its 22-page order, the Court also found faults with the State machinery for failing to protect the women's liberty.
The Court remarked that the State, instead of securing their release, had permitted the illegal detention to continue under the cover of the criminal proceedings and had, through its acts of omission and commission, "lent tacit support to the continued deprivation of the fundamental rights" of the women.
Finding an "exceptionally grave and egregious violation of constitutional rights", the Court held that the case warranted exemplary constitutional compensation.
The Court remarked thus:
"The Constitution does not confer upon parents a licence to incarcerate their major children merely because they disapprove of their faith, beliefs or personal choices…Constitutional rights cannot be eclipsed by parental authority, social morality or majoritarian sentiment".
Against the backdrop of these observations, the Court said that both the women were free to reside at any place and with any person of their own choice, without interference from their father, the State or any other person.
The father and the State of Uttar Pradesh were held jointly and severally liable to pay ₹25 lakh compensation, to be equally divided between them, within eight weeks.
The father was restrained from interfering with their personal liberty, movement, residence, profession or religious choices.
He was also directed to hand over their passports, educational certificates, identity documents, bank passbooks, cheque books, conversion-related documents and other personal belongings within seven days.
The State authorities were directed to ensure that no interference was caused in their peaceful life and liberty and to provide protection, if required.
The Court, however, clarified that its observations were confined to the issue of illegal detention and would not amount to a finding on the merits of the criminal case or the legality or validity of the alleged religious 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.
Additional Advocate General 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 Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 558