MP High Court Backs Adult Daughter's Right To Renounce World And Become Jain Saadhvi

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a 20-year-old woman who wishes to renounce worldly life and take Diksha to become a Jain Saadhvi is entitled to exercise her fundamental right to freely follow and practise her religion, and directed the police to step in and protect her from any coercion by her own parents if she seeks such assistance.

Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt of the High Court's Indore Bench was hearing a writ petition filed by Tanisha, who told the court that she had chosen to follow Shwetambar Jain Dharma and wished to pursue the religious path of Diksha. She said her parents and relatives were harassing her and opposing her decision, and that she feared they would interfere with her freedom of conscience and religion and restrict her movement and liberty.

The petitioner had sought police protection, a direction restraining her parents and relatives from interfering with her religious initiation, and a declaration that being a major, she was entitled to exercise her fundamental rights under Articles 19, 21, 25 and 26 without hindrance. Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Ashish Joshi told the court that a representation had already been submitted to the Commissioner of Police, Indore, seeking protection, and that it remained pending. He urged the court to ensure that the petitioner was not subjected to any cruelty, harassment, coercion or intimidation at the hands of her own parents or relatives. Advocate Garvit Jain appeared for the State.

Recording the submissions, the court observed that the petitioner, being an adult citizen of India, was "entitled to follow the religion or practise of religion as per her own way and to live her life as per her will." It noted that she was already following Jain Dharma and had now decided to renounce the world and live her life as a Saadhvi, but that her parents and near relatives, out of their attachment to her, were trying to prevent her from doing so. The court recorded her apprehension that her parents, being influential persons in society, would not allow her to take Diksha and live peacefully as a Jain Saadhvi.

The bench was careful to note that it had "equal sympathy towards the present petitioner as well as towards the parents of the petitioner," recognising the parents' resistance as arising from attachment to their daughter. However, it held that the law was clear that a major, aged more than 18 years, was entitled to protection of her family rights and other legal rights, and that any obstruction caused by anybody could not be permitted in the eyes of law.

In arriving at this view, the court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., which held that major persons are free to make their own decisions and that courts are required to protect the interests of such persons. The order also referred to Shakti Vahini v. Union of India while directing how the police must act on any future application from the petitioner.

Rather than granting a blanket protection order, the High Court crafted a practical remedy. It directed the petitioner to approach the Superintendent of Police, the concerned police station, or the fourth respondent, by filing a formal application seeking assistance against any coercive method adopted by any person, including her own parents. Once such an application is filed, the court said, the concerned authority or the concerned Station House Officer must look into the matter and "immediately take action" in accordance with the directions laid down by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh and Shakti Vahini.

With this direction, the court disposed of the writ petition, leaving it to the police machinery to step in if and when the petitioner seeks their assistance, while affirming in unambiguous terms that her choice of religion and religious path cannot be dictated by her family.

Case Title: Tanisha vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: September 7, 2026

Bench: Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt