Allahabad HC upholds religious conversion of two women, orders UP govt. and father to pay ₹25 lakh compensation
The Allahabad High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition concerning two adult sisters, aged 35 and 20, who had converted to Islam and were confined at their parental home
The Court held that the women, as adults, were entitled to decide their own faith, residence, and personal affairs, and that this entitlement is independent of any question about the legality of their religious conversion
The State of Uttar Pradesh and the women's father were held jointly and severally liable to pay ₹25 lakh in compensation, to be divided equally between the two women, within eight weeks
The Court clarified that the legality of a conversion under state anti-conversion law and the legality of a person's confinement are two distinct and independent issues — a pending question on the former does not authorise continued detention
Habeas Corpus — Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226
Habeas corpus, Latin for "you may have the body," is a writ that commands the production of a detained person before a court to test the legality of their detention. In India, High Courts can issue this writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court under Article 32, both drawn from the English common law tradition of prerogative writs.
Key Details
- Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto) not only for enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for any other legal right — giving it wider scope than Article 32, which is confined to Fundamental Rights
- A habeas corpus petition can be filed by the detained person or, when they cannot approach the court themselves, by a relative or any interested person on their behalf
- Courts examine whether detention has lawful sanction; in "adult choice" cases involving alleged confinement by family members, courts typically interview the person directly to ascertain their free will before ruling on custody
The two sisters' confinement by family members, alleged to be linked to their religious conversion, was tested through a habeas corpus petition — the classical constitutional remedy for any unlawful deprivation of personal liberty, regardless of who effects the detention.
Article 21 — Personal Liberty and the Right to Choose Faith and Residence
Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law. The Supreme Court has progressively read into this the right of an adult to choose their faith, spouse, and place of residence, free from interference by family, community, or the state.
Key Details
- In Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), the Supreme Court held that an adult has the right to marry whoever they choose, and that this is part of the right to life under Article 21
- In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) — the "Hadiya case" — the Court held that an adult has the same fundamental right to choose their religion and marry a person of their choice without interference from courts, family, or society
- This is read alongside Article 25, which guarantees all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health
The Allahabad High Court's holding that adult women are entitled to decide their faith and residence follows this established line of Article 21 jurisprudence on personal autonomy, applying it to a habeas corpus context.
Compensatory Jurisprudence for Unlawful Detention
Indian constitutional courts have developed the practice of awarding monetary compensation as a public law remedy for violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty, separate from any private law remedy in tort.
Key Details
- Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) was the landmark case establishing the Supreme Court's power under Article 32 to award compensation for unlawful detention — the petitioner had been kept in jail for over 14 years after acquittal
- This departed from the earlier position in Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964), which had granted the state broad immunity from tortious liability for actions of its officials
- Compensation in such cases is awarded against the state (and, where applicable, private individuals responsible for the confinement) as a direct constitutional remedy, not requiring a separate civil suit
The ₹25 lakh compensation ordered jointly against the State of Uttar Pradesh and the women's father follows this compensatory jurisprudence, extending liability both to the state (for its role in the case) and to a private individual found responsible for unlawful confinement.
State Anti-Conversion Law and the Separation of Conversion Legality from Detention Legality
Several states, including Uttar Pradesh, have enacted laws restricting religious conversion by force, fraud, coercion, undue influence, allurement, or marriage. The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 penalises such conversions and mandates prior notice procedures, but a pending or disputed question under this law does not, by itself, justify confining the person whose conversion is in question.
Key Details
- Under the UP Act, 2021, offences are cognizable and non-bailable, triable by a Sessions Court, with penalties for mass conversions ranging from seven to fourteen years' imprisonment plus a fine; courts may separately direct compensation to the victim of an unlawful conversion, up to ₹5 lakh
- The Act requires prior declaration and district magistrate notification for conversions carried out through religious ceremony, distinct from the personal law framework for interfaith marriage
- The Allahabad High Court's distinction — that legality of conversion and legality of detention are separate questions — means allegations under such a law can be investigated on their own track without justifying continued confinement of the person alleged to have converted
Even though the women's father had lodged a complaint alleging forced conversion (a matter potentially attracting the UP Act, 2021), the Court held that any such allegation had to be examined through due process and could not be used to justify keeping the women confined against their will.
- Compensation ordered: ₹25 lakh, jointly and severally against the State of Uttar Pradesh and the father, divided equally between the two women, payable within eight weeks
- Ages of the petitioners: 35 and 20 years
- Lata Singh v. State of U.P.: decided 2006; Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (Hadiya case): decided 2018
- Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar: decided 1983, established compensation as an Article 32 public law remedy
- UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021: mass conversion offences carry 7–14 years' imprisonment; court-ordered victim compensation can extend up to ₹5 lakh under the Act
- Constitutional basis for habeas corpus: Article 226 (High Courts), Article 32 (Supreme Court)