'He Voluntarily Embraced Islam' : Allahabad High Court Frees Ayush Malik From Home Confinement
The Court observed that as an adult, the man was at liberty to choose his faith and life-partner.
The Allahabad High Court has set at liberty a 31-year-old man named Ayush Malik after he told the Court that he had voluntarily embraced Islam and alleged that his father subsequently subjected him to threats and unlawful confinement.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain, while dealing with a habeas corpus petition, held that an adult is ordinarily entitled to determine his faith according to his own conscience and that such a choice "cannot be displaced merely because it is not acceptable to his family members".
The Court also held that an adult's choice of life partner is a matter of individual autonomy and family disapproval, by itself, cannot furnish a legitimate basis for curtailing such choice.
The habeas corpus petition was filed by Ayush Malik's friend, alleging that Malik was being illegally detained by his father (Devraj Singh Malik), with the assistance of State authorities.
On September 9, the High Court directed the State authorities and Malik's father to produce him before the Court. The bench had also noted that the allegations of his illegal detention and the purported involvement of State authorities were serious.
Today, Malik was produced before the Court and Justice Jain interacted with him.
Malik stated that he was about 31 years old and had completed B.Pharma. He told the Court that he had voluntarily embraced Islam in 2014, of his own free will and without any coercion, threat, undue influence or inducement.
He further stated that he had been following the essential practices of Islam, although his decision was not acceptable to his parents and other family members.
Malik also stated that he intended to enter into a matrimonial relationship with Chandni Qureshi, a decision that was unacceptable to his parents.
He alleged that thereafter he was subjected to threats and unlawful confinement and had been kept under house arrest from June 4, 2026. He categorically told the Court that he was not under any coercion, threat, undue influence or pressure and had independently chosen to profess and practice Islam.
Malik's father, on the other hand, disputed his son's allegations. He told the Court that Malik had been influenced or “brainwashed” and had not voluntarily embraced Islam.
He stated that he was concerned about his son's welfare and therefore did not approve of his decision to embrace Islam or to solemnize marriage with Chandni Qureshi.
After interacting with both Malik and his father, the Court noted that Malik had attained majority and was capable of taking decisions concerning his own life. The Court observed thus:
"His categorical statement before the Court is that he has voluntarily embraced Islam and that such decision was neither induced nor occasioned by any threat, coercion, undue influence or pressure. Nothing has been brought on record which may persuade this Court to disbelieve the statement made by the corpus in the course of his interaction with the Court".
The High Court also stressed that a person who has attained majority is ordinarily entitled to determine his faith according to his own conscience.
On the issue of marriage, the Court held that the right to choose a person with whom one wishes to enter into a matrimonial relationship is an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
"The choice of an adult as to whom he or she wishes to marry or with whom he or she wishes to establish a relationship is a matter of individual autonomy", the Court said.
It added that the mere fact that such choice may be contrary to the wishes or expectations of the family "cannot, by itself, furnish a legitimate basis for curtailing such choice".
The Court noted that Malik had unequivocally expressed his desire to profess and practice Islam and his intention to marry Chandni Qureshi. It found no material, at that stage, to doubt the voluntariness of the choices he expressed.
The Bench further remarked thus:
"Once an adult person has unequivocally expressed his free will and choice before the Court, such choice is ordinarily entitled to be respected, unless its exercise is shown to be vitiated by circumstances recognised in law".
The Court observed that, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, it was not required to substitute its own perception of what would be beneficial or appropriate for the considered choice of an adult corpus.
It acknowledged that the father's concern regarding his son's welfare was understandable, but held that such concern could not override the constitutionally protected autonomy of an adult competent to take decisions concerning his faith, residence and choice of life partner.
Thus, finding no lawful justification for continuing any restraint upon the personal liberty of Malik, the Court set him at liberty.
It directed that he would be free to reside at such place and with such person as he may choose, to profess and practise the religion of his choice, and to take an appropriate decision regarding his matrimonial relationship in accordance with law.
The habeas corpus petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case title - Ayush Malik And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 708
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 708