Religious Conversion | Allahabad HC Orders Rs 25 Lakh Compensation To 2 Women Confined By Father Over Embracing Islam

For an adult to choose where to live or which faith to follow is not a decision that parents can override by restricting their freedom, the Allahabad high court has held, ordering Rs 25 lakh compensation for two women whom it found had been illegally confined by their father after they embraced Islam.

The bench of Justice Sandeep Jain, in a judgment dated August 6, held that the two women, aged about 20 and 35, had unequivocally told the court that they had embraced Islam voluntarily and that there was nothing to indicate that they were acting under coercion, fear, inducement or undue influence.

Court said the father had no legal authority to confine the women merely because he disagreed with their religious choices. It also held the State accountable for allowing the alleged illegal detention to continue.

Why did the Allahabad HC order the women’s release?

Court found that both women were major and legally competent to take decisions concerning their faith, residence and other aspects of their lives. During its interaction with them, both consistently said that they had converted to Islam out of their own free will and for reasons including personal faith, conscience, mental peace and spiritual fulfilment.

One of the women told the court she had converted in 2020, while her sister said she had converted in 2021. Both alleged that their father opposed their decisions and thereafter confined them in the parental home. They said they were prevented from leaving and were subjected to physical restraint, intimidation and mental harassment.

Court said that once a person attains majority, the Constitution recognises her autonomy to make decisions concerning faith, belief, residence and association.

It relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Sonni Gerry v Gerry Douglas (2018) and Shafin Jahan v Asokan K.M. (2018), which recognise the decisional autonomy of adults and caution courts against assuming the role of a “super guardian” over adult individuals.

What did the court say about the alleged religious conversion?

The State argued that the conversions were not voluntary and formed part of a larger organised conspiracy. It also relied on the criminal case lodged by the father and said investigation had revealed additional offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

Court, however, said the legality of the conversion was not the issue before it in the habeas corpus proceedings.

“The legality of the conversion and the legality of their detention constitute two distinct and independent issues,” it said, adding that questions concerning compliance with the 2021 Act could be examined by the competent authority or court.

It also rejected the State’s argument that the conversion itself threatened national security. Court said that apart from broad assertions based on the FIR and the pending investigation, no material had been placed before it to show that the women’s voluntary religious choice constituted a threat to the sovereignty, integrity or security of the country.

“Mere apprehensions, however serious they may appear, cannot substitute legally admissible material,” court observed.

What compensation did the court award?

Court held that the women had been confined against their wishes and that the State had failed to protect their fundamental rights. It described the deprivation of liberty as a “flagrant affront to the Rule of Law” and said the confinement had caused mental anguish, emotional trauma, psychological suffering and social isolation.

It accordingly held the father and the State of Uttar Pradesh jointly and severally liable to pay Rs 25 lakh, to be equally divided between the two women, within eight weeks.

Court further allowed the State to recover 50% of the amount from the father and the remaining 50% from any delinquent public servant whose acts or omissions contributed to the unconstitutional deprivation of liberty.

The father was directed not to interfere with the women’s liberty, movement, residence, profession or religious choices. He was also ordered to return their passports, educational certificates, identity documents, bank records, conversion-related documents and other personal belongings within seven days.

Court clarified that its observations were confined to the question of illegal detention and would not affect the merits of the pending criminal proceedings or the legality of the alleged conversions.

Case Title: Kunwar Sultan Ali and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Order Date: August 6, 2026

Bench: Justice Sandeep Jain