The Allahabad High Court has ordered the father of two adult sisters and the Uttar Pradesh government to jointly pay ₹25 lakh compensation after finding 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 filed in connection with Diya Bhatia, also known as Zoya Diya Bhatia, 20, and Anshu Bhatia, also known as Amina Anshu Bhatia, 35.
The sisters told the court that they had voluntarily embraced Islam, with Anshu converting in 2020 and Diya in 2021. They said their decisions were based on their own faith, conscience, mental peace and spiritual beliefs. Both women denied that their conversions were the result of force, fraud, coercion, undue influence, inducement or allurement.
They alleged that their father subsequently confined them at their parental home against their wishes because they had changed their religion.
Court Upholds Right to Choose Religion
After interacting with the two women, the High Court recorded that their responses were “spontaneous, coherent and unequivocal”. The court said there was nothing to indicate that either woman was acting under coercion, fear, inducement or undue influence.
The court emphasised that both women were majors and therefore had the legal capacity to make decisions about their own lives.
“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,” the court observed.
Referring to Article 25 of the Constitution, the bench said freedom of conscience includes the right of a competent adult to adopt, renounce or change their faith according to their own free will, belief and conviction.
The court further said that the choice of faith is an essential part of individual autonomy, dignity and personal liberty protected under Articles 21 and 25.
Conversion Case Did Not Justify Confinement
The Uttar Pradesh government opposed the habeas corpus petition, referring to an FIR lodged by the women’s father alleging that they had been subjected to forcible and deceitful conversion.
The FIR was initially registered under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. During the 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 was part of a larger conspiracy with implications for the sovereignty, integrity and unity of the country, and that releasing the women could affect the investigation.
The High Court rejected the argument that the ongoing investigation could justify keeping the two adult women confined.
The bench held that the legality of the alleged conversion and the legality of the women’s detention were two separate issues.
“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 court added that any dispute over the legality of the conversion could be examined by the appropriate forum, while the question of illegal detention fell within its jurisdiction in the habeas corpus proceedings.
Court Rejects ‘Threat to National Security’ Argument
The High Court was also not persuaded by the state’s claim that the women’s alleged conversion had implications for the country’s sovereignty, integrity or security.
It noted that no material had been presented before the court, apart from broad assertions in the FIR and the ongoing investigation, to show that the women’s voluntary exercise of religious choice itself posed such a threat.
“Mere apprehensions, however serious they may appear, cannot substitute legally admissible material while adjudicating upon the fundamental rights of citizens,” the court observed.
The bench clarified that its observations would not affect the ongoing criminal investigation, which must continue strictly according to law.
State Held Responsible for Continued Detention
The court found that the two women had been unwillingly confined at their parental home and prevented from exercising their independent choices after embracing a different faith.
Justice Jain observed that once a person becomes an adult, parental authority must give way to constitutional liberty and individual autonomy.
The court said that any restraint on the movement or liberty of an adult without lawful authority amounts to illegal confinement and violates fundamental rights.
It also criticised the state machinery for failing to protect the women’s liberty, observing that authorities had allowed the alleged illegal detention to continue under the cover of criminal proceedings.
The court described the violation as an “exceptionally grave and egregious violation of constitutional rights” and held that the case warranted exemplary constitutional compensation.
“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,” the court said, adding that constitutional rights cannot be overridden by parental authority, social morality or majoritarian sentiment.
₹25 Lakh Compensation Ordered
The High Court ruled that both women were free to live wherever and with whomever they chose, without interference from their father, the state or any other person.
The father and the Uttar Pradesh government were held jointly and severally liable to pay ₹25 lakh in compensation, with the amount to be divided equally between them. The payment was directed to be made within eight weeks.
The father was also restrained from interfering with the sisters’ personal liberty, movement, residence, profession or religious choices.
He was 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 the sisters could live peacefully and exercise their liberty without interference, and to provide protection if required.
The court, however, made it clear that its observations were limited to the issue of illegal detention and did not amount to a final finding on the merits of the criminal case or the validity of the alleged religious conversion.
