Allahabad HC orders ₹25 lakh compensation to 2 sisters illegally confined by family after conversion to Islam

The Allahabad High Court has ordered compensation of ₹25 lakh for 2 women who were illegally confined by their father after they converted from Hinduism to Islam.

Justice Sandeep Jain ordered the women's father and the State government to jointly pay the amount after it found that they were forcibly confined in their parental home against their expressed wishes.

In the judgment passed on August 6, the Court said that the sisters were deprived of their liberty for a prolonged period since 2021 and that the State, instead of securing their release, permitted the continuation of their illegal detention under the ostensible cover of criminal proceedings.

"The record unmistakably reveals that the State machinery failed to discharge its constitutional obligations and, by its acts of omission and commission, lent tacit support to the continued deprivation of the fundamental rights of the corpus. Such executive inaction and constitutional indifference cannot receive judicial approbation and renders the State equally accountable in public law for the violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the corpus," the Court said.

Consequently, the Court declared that the women are free to reside at any place and with any person of their own choice, without any interference from their father or any other person or the State and its functionaries. It also asked the State to ensure their protection.

The Court ordered the women’s father to hand over their passport, educational certificates, identity documents, bank passbooks, cheque books, conversion-related documents and personal belongings within seven days.

The Court observed that an assumption of non-compliance with the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 cannot authorise the continued confinement of two adult women by their father against their wishes.

"No material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the voluntary exercise of religious choice by the corpus, by itself, constitutes a threat to the sovereignty, integrity or security of the country. Mere apprehensions, however serious they may appear, cannot substitute legally admissible material while adjudicating upon the fundamental rights of citizens," the Bench said.

It noted that the women have categorically stated that they embraced Islam voluntarily, out of their own free will, in pursuit of spiritual satisfaction, peace of mind and freedom of conscience.

There is nothing on record to indicate that they were acting under coercion, undue influence, fraud, allurement or any other vitiating circumstance, it added.

"Being major women, the corpus possess an inviolable constitutional right to determine the course of their own lives. Such decisional autonomy necessarily encompasses the right to choose their faith, determine their place of residence and decide with whom they wish to reside. These freedoms constitute integral facets of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and the freedom of conscience guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India," the Court said.

The Court passed the order on a habeas corpus petition stating that the women - aged about 20 years and 35 years - had voluntarily renounced the Hindu faith and embraced Islam of their own free will. It was further submitted that they have decided to solemnise their marriages in accordance with their own choice and wishes.

Their father allegedly filed a false kidnapping case with the police to prevent them from following their wishes. The police later added provisions of the anti-conversion law to the first information report (FIR).

The plea before the Court alleged that the father in connivance with the police illegally confined the women. They are not accused of any crime, the Court was told.

On July 30, the Court had directed the police and the women's father to ensure their presence before the Court so that the judge could interact with them directly regarding the voluntariness of their decisions.

Following the interaction, the Court noted that both the women consistently asserted that they had voluntarily embraced Islam as a matter of personal faith and conscience.

It rejected the State government's argument that their conversion from Hinduism to Islam forms part of a larger conspiracy which can threaten the sovereignty, integrity and unity of the nation.

It said mere apprehensions cannot substitute legally admissible material in a case involving fundamental rights of citizens.

"Except for a broad assertion founded upon the allegations contained in the First Information Report and the pendency of investigation, no material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the voluntary exercise of religious choice by the corpus, by itself, constitutes a threat to the sovereignty, integrity or security of the country," the Bench said.

It observed that the women, despite being major, educated and legally competent women, were deprived of their liberty for a prolonged period commencing from 2021.

"Such prolonged and coercive confinement strikes at the very foundation of constitutional democracy, which recognises the autonomy of every adult individual as sacrosanct and beyond the reach of parental or societal control. The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty cannot be permitted to yield to familial disapproval, social orthodoxy or executive apathy," the Bench said.

It reiterated that 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.

"Constitutional rights cannot be eclipsed by parental authority, social morality or majoritarian sentiment. The liberty of an adult individual is inviolable, and any attempt to suppress that liberty by force or coercion invites the constitutional scrutiny of this Court and attracts appropriate public law consequences, including the award of monetary compensation for the infringement of fundamental rights," it said.

Advocates Ali Bin Saif, Kaif Hasan, Mohd Abubakar, Mohd Areeb Masood, Faraz Khan and Dinesh Kumar Yadav represented the petitioners.

Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal with Additional Government Advocate Pankaj Saxena appeared on behalf of the State.

[Read Judgment]