In a rare and significant judgment on the contentious issue of religious conversion, the Allahabad High Court has ordered immediate release of two adult women who, in person, told the court that they had voluntarily embraced Islam.
The court also held the Uttar Pradesh government and their father jointly responsible for illegally confining them and directed payment of Rs. 25 lakh in compensation to the women. This is a rare order in a case of religious conversion and illegal confinement of converts to Islam.
The court also sharply criticised the manner in which the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 was sought to be invoked against them.
The order was issued by Justice Sandeep Jain while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Anshu Bhatia alias Amina Bhatia (35) and Diya Bhatia alias Zoya Bhatia (20) on August 6. While Anshu alias Amina Bhatia is unmarried, and highly educated, having obtained an M.Sc. and M.Phil degrees in Zoology, besides a B.Ed. degree. She had also served as a lecturer in an Inter College. Divya alias Zoya Bhatia is educated up to 12th Std and is 20 years old.
Both women informed the court that they had converted to Islam of their own free will in 2020 and 2021, respectively, for “mental peace, spiritual fulfilment and inner solace”, and denied any coercion, fraud, inducement or allurement.
During in-camera interaction, the women stated that their father, Anil Kumar Bhatia, had opposed their decision, forcibly confined them in the parental home, subjected them to physical restraint, intimidation and mental harassment, with the avowed objective of compelling them to renounce the faith which they had voluntarily adopted and to revert to Hinduism.
They asserted that they were deprived of their freedom of movement and were not permitted to leave the parental home. According to them, they remained under the unlawful and involuntary confinement of their father until they were ultimately produced before the Allahabad High Court in response to the directions of the court.
They said they were not allowed to lead their life in accordance with their own wishes and volition though, as adult women, they were constitutionally entitled to choose and practise a religion of their choice.
The women disclosed that their father withheld their passports, educational certificates, identity documents, bank passbooks, cheque books, conversion-related documents and other personal belongings.
The Uttar Pradesh government opposed the petition, arguing that an FIR lodged by their father alleged forcible and deceitful conversion and that offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the U.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 had been added during investigation. The State went further, contending that the alleged conversion could be part of a larger organised conspiracy affecting national security, sovereignty, unity, integrity and social harmony.
The court, however, found no material to support those allegations and observed that the women’s statements were “spontaneous, coherent and unequivocal” and showed no sign of coercion or undue influence.
Court Rejects National-Security Argument
The bench firmly rejected those submissions, observing that no material had been placed before the court to show that the voluntary religious choice of two adult women posed any threat to the sovereignty, integrity or security of the nation. The judge held that broad allegations and speculative apprehensions could not override fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.
The court emphasised that both women appeared before it voluntarily, gave coherent and unequivocal statements, and showed no sign of fear, coercion or undue influence.
Important Constitutional Observations
The judgment contains several significant constitutional observations that may have implications for future conversion-related litigation. It asserts that freedom of conscience under Article 25 includes the right to adopt, renounce or change one’s religion. The parental authority ends where the constitutional liberty of an adult individual begins. The legality of a religious conversion and the legality of a person’s detention are two separate questions. Even alleged non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under the U.P. Freedom of Religion Act, 2021 cannot justify the confinement of adult women against their wishes.
The court specifically observed that constitutional rights cannot be eclipsed by parental authority, social morality or majoritarian sentiment, and that an adult woman cannot be treated as a person whose religious identity is subject to family control.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents
To reinforce its reasoning, the bench relied on a series of Supreme Court decisions, including Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018), Sonni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas (2018) and Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. (2025). These judgments recognise the autonomy of adult individuals in matters of faith, marriage, residence and personal association and this means that judges are required to protect an adult’s freedom of choice in matters such as religion, residence and personal relationships, even when those choices are opposed by parents or disapproved of by society.
Legal observers described the ruling as one of the most forceful judicial assertions in recent years that anti-conversion laws cannot be used as a substitute for lawful authority to curtail the liberty of adult citizens. The order repeatedly stressed that constitutional rights cannot be eclipsed by “parental authority, social morality or majoritarian sentiment”.
Rs. 25 Lakh Compensation Ordered
In an extraordinary exercise of its public law jurisdiction, the High Court held that the father and the State of Uttar Pradesh were jointly and severally liable for the unconstitutional deprivation of the women’s liberty. The court directed payment of Rs. 25 lakh to the two women, to be shared equally between them, within eight weeks. It further permitted the State government, after paying the amount, to recover 50% from the father and the remaining 50% from any delinquent public servant found responsible for the violation of the women’s rights.
The judgment described the case as an “exceptionally grave and egregious violation of constitutional rights”, noting that the women had allegedly been deprived of their liberty for years solely because they chose to profess a religion different from that of their family. The court said such prolonged confinement struck “at the very foundation of constitutional democracy”.
Women Declared Free to Choose Religion and Residence
Allowing the petition, the bench declared that Anshu Bhatia and Diya Bhatia are free to reside at any place and with any person of their choice without interference from their father, the State, or any other person. It also ordered the father to return all their original documents within seven days and directed the police authorities to ensure that no interference is caused to their peaceful life and liberty and to provide protection if required.
A Rare Conversion-Law Ruling
The decision is being seen as a rare and potentially influential judgment on religious conversion disputes, particularly because it combines three unusual features:
One: It treats freedom of religion as an aspect of personal liberty and dignity under Article 21. This affirms an adult woman’s right to change her religion.
Two: It holds that anti-conversion proceedings cannot be used to legitimise illegal detention by family members. This is a judicial ruling that confinement by parents amounts to illegal detention.
Three: It imposes substantial constitutional compensation on both the State and a private individual for violating the liberty of adult women under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution.
The court clarified that its observations were confined to the issue of illegal detention and would not affect the merits of the pending criminal investigation relating to the alleged conversion, which would be decided independently by the competent court in accordance with law.
[The writer is Chief Editor, India Tomorrow news portal.]