I am a citizen of this country and a major within the meaning of the Indian Majority Act. I embraced Islam of my own free will and consent. I married a Muslim woman out of my own choice. This is my fundamental right, protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.”
This was the statement made by Ayush Malik before the Allahabad High Court. Relying on his statement, Justice Sandeep Jain passed the order after Malik, aged about 31 years and a Bachelor of Pharmacy graduate, told the Court that he had voluntarily embraced Islam and married a Muslim woman of his own choice.
The dispute reportedly began after Ayush Malik, embraced Islam and entered into a relationship with Chandni Qureshi. His father subsequently lodged a police complaint. Malik was allegedly threatened and confined by his father and other family members from 4 June 2026, with attempts allegedly made to compel him to return to Hinduism.
In the month of September 2026, Malik’s friend Sultan, approached the Allahabad High Court by filing a writ petition of habeas corpus, alleging that Malik had been unlawfully confined by his father and family members since 4 June 2026. The petition sought Malik’s production before the Court and his release from the alleged confinement.
The Ayush Malik case is not an isolated instance of a dispute between an adult and his family over religion and marriage. Shortly before this case, a similar matter involving two sisters from Agra came before the Allahabad High Court. The sisters had allegedly been confined by their parents, and the High Court intervened in a habeas corpus proceeding and ordered their release. The Court also awarded compensation of ₹25 lakh, according to the judgment in that matter.
Viewed together, these cases raise an important constitutional question concerning the personal autonomy of an adult citizen in matters of religion, marriage and choice of partner. They also bring into focus the limits of family authority when it conflicts with the liberty and choices of an adult.
The cases provide an opportunity to examine the constitutional protection afforded to an adult’s freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, personal liberty, dignity and choice of partner, as well as the role of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in protecting individual liberty through habeas corpus proceedings.
The central issue is therefore not merely whether a family approves of an adult’s religious or marital choices, but whether such disapproval can lawfully justify restricting the person’s liberty or compelling the person to abandon a voluntarily chosen faith or relationship. These cases consequently bring the constitutional principle of individual autonomy into direct focus, particularly where an adult’s own choices come into conflict with the wishes of family members.
Malik’s Age and Capacity to Make His Own Decisions
Ayush Malik was about 31 years old when he appeared before the Allahabad High Court. He was therefore not a minor whose decisions could ordinarily be subjected to parental control or guardianship. The central issue was instead the autonomy of an adult to make decisions concerning his own life, including his religion and choice of partner.
Under the Indian Majority Act, 1875, a person ordinarily attains majority on completing 18 years of age, subject to the statutory framework governing particular matters. Malik, being 31 years old, was well beyond the age of majority. His status as an adult was therefore significant in considering whether his family could lawfully restrain him or require him to act according to their wishes.
The question before the Court was not simply whether Malik’s family agreed with his decision to embrace Islam or marry a Muslim woman. The more fundamental question was whether an adult citizen, capable of making his own decisions, could be prevented from exercising those choices merely because they were contrary to the wishes of his parents or other family members.
This distinction is important. Family members may disagree with an adult’s religious or marital decisions, and such disagreement may have social or personal consequences. However, disagreement by itself does not necessarily create a legal authority to deprive an adult of his personal liberty. Any restriction upon an individual’s liberty must have a basis recognised by law.
The issue becomes even more significant where the alleged restriction concerns a person’s religious identity and choice of spouse. The Constitution protects individual liberty and freedom of conscience, while the Supreme Court has, in several decisions, recognised the importance of individual autonomy in matters concerning marriage, intimate relationships, privacy and personal choices. These constitutional protections are particularly relevant when an adult’s decision conflicts with the preferences of family members.
In Malik’s case, therefore, his age was not a mere biographical detail. It went to the heart of the habeas corpus proceedings. If an adult is produced before the Court and states that he has voluntarily chosen his religion and partner, the Court has to consider his own wishes and liberty rather than treating the preferences of his family as determinative. This raises a broader constitutional question:Can the family of an adult person legally compel him to follow a particular religion or prevent him from choosing a spouse merely because they disagree with his decision?
Where there are allegations of force, fraud, coercion, unlawful confinement, or violation of a statutory requirement, those allegations may require examination by the competent authorities or courts. The crucial distinction is between a genuine exercise of an adult’s free choice and a decision allegedly obtained through unlawful means.
This makes the case relevant not merely as a dispute concerning conversion or an interfaith relationship, but as part of the larger constitutional debate over personal liberty, freedom of conscience, decisional autonomy and the right of an adult to determine the course of his own life.
Statement of Ayush Malik Before the High Court
Ayush Malik told the Allahabad High Court that he is about 31 years old and 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 told the Court that he intended to enter into a matrimonial relationship with Chandni Qureshi, a decision that was likewise opposed by his parents.
Malik alleged that following these decisions, he was subjected to threats and unlawful confinement and had been kept under house arrest since 4 June 2026. He categorically told the Court that he was not under any coercion, threat, undue influence or pressure and that he had independently chosen to profess and practise Islam.
The issue of freedom of conscience is central to the Ayush Malik case. Article 25(1) of the Constitution guarantees to all persons the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. This right, however, is subject to public order, morality, health and the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution….
[The writer is an advocate, practising at Delhi; advmdzahidfalahi@gmail.com]
To read in full, click here.