Allahabad High Court
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court on August 6 had directed the Uttar Pradesh government and the father of two adult sisters who voluntarily converted to Islam to jointly pay Rs 25 lakh in compensation after ruling that they were illegally confined following the conversion.
Justice Sandeep Jain passed the order while hearing the petition filed by sisters Diya Bhatia, who changed her name to Zoya Diya Bhatia, and Anshu Bhatia, who changed her name to Amina Anshu Bhatia.
Amina and Zoya had said that they voluntarily embraced Islam in 2020 and 2021, respectively, in conscience, mental peace, and spiritual solace. They rejected claims that their decision to convert was a result of coercion, undue influence, force, inducement, or allurement.
The sisters alleged their father registered a first information report (FIR) in Agra in May 2025 against their personal choices and illegally confined them with police assistance for nearly five years.
In a July 30 order, the High Court observed that as long as women above 18 years of age convert to any religion and marry based on their choice of person, no individual inlcuding, including her father, can interfere in that decision.
The bench, after conversing with them, found that their responses were “spontaneous, coherent, and unequivocal,” adding that it was not likely they acted under coercion, inducement, fear or undue influence.
The court had ordered the father to release his daughters, but the order was allegedly ignored. The Allahabad High Court penalised the parents and the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 25 lakh each and immediately release the sisters.
“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 held.
Citing Article 25, the High Court noted that the “freedom of conscience” statement strictly encompasses the right of a competent adult to renounce or change her faith in accordance with her own free will, belief and conviction.
Such a choice is an important aspect of individual autonomy, dignity and personal liberty, protected under Articles 21 and 25, the bench said. Neither the State nor the family can order or interfere with such an “intensely” personal decision except within restrictions protected by the Constitution and the authority of law, it noted.
However, the State opposed the petition, referring to the FIR filed by the father alleging forcible and deceitful conversion from Hinduism to Islam.
The case was registered under Section 87 (kidnapping, abduction) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Later, authorities invoked Sections 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), 111(3) (organised crime), 111(4) (penalises member of organised crime syndicate) and 152 (acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India) of the BNS, along with sections of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
The state contended that the case was part of a larger organised conspiracy, stating that releasing the sisters could influence the investigation.
The question of whether the conversion fell under the 2021 Act could not explain or justify their continued detainment. According to the court, the legality of the conversion and the legality of the confinement are two different, independent 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,” said the Allahabad High Court.
The court remained unimpressed with the state’s argument that the conversion “threatened” the country’s sovereignty, integrity, and security.
The bench flagged the lack of proper material submitted to prove that the women’s voluntary conversion by itself acted as a threat.
“Mere apprehensions, however serious they may appear, cannot substitute legally admissible material while adjudicating upon the fundamental rights of citizens,” the court said.
The bench asserted that the investigation based on the FIR will continue strictly in accordance with the law and remain unbiased by its own observations during the proceedings.
Justice Jain highlighted that the women were confined unwillingly in their parental home and restricted from exercising their decisions solely because they accepted another faith. He said that after individuals become adults, parental authority yields to constitutional liberty and individual autonomy. Otherwise, it will amount to a direct infringement of their fundamental rights, the court observed.
“Such confinement cannot receive the acceptance of law and is manifestly violative of constitutional rights,” the judge said.
The Court noted that instead of securing their release, the State had allowed the illegal detention to continue under the cover of criminal proceedings and through acts of omission, “lent tacit support to the continued deprivation of the fundamental rights” of the women.
Justice Jain said the case warranted exemplary constitutional compensation as it found an “exceptionally grave and egregious violation of constitutional rights.”
The Court held that the women were free to live in any place, with any person, without interference from the State, their father, or any other individual.
The State and the father were subsequently ordered to jointly pay Rs 25 lakh compensation to the women. The father was additionally restrained from interfering with their religious choices, personal liberty, profession, residence, and movement.
He was also asked to return their identification documents including passports, bank passbooks, educational certificates, cheque books, documents relating to conversion and belongings within a week.
Separately, the State officials were directed to ensure the father did not interfere in their lives and to provide protection, if and when required.
The court reiterated its ruling was limited to the illegal detention, and would not influence in deciding who is ultimately guilty regarding the underlying criminal charges or whether the religious conversion was legally binding.
This post was last modified on August 11, 2026 5:27 pm