UP Anti-Conversion Law: Allahabad High Court Puts in Abeyance ADM Order Rejecting Muslim Man’s Conversion to Sanatan Dharma

The Allahabad High Court recently pulled up the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Prayagraj, for repeatedly calling for police reports and relying on an FIR and charge sheet to reject a man’s religious conversion declaration, observing that the authority had exercised “a power not vested” under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

“We do not appreciate this act and conduct of the Additional District Magistrate,” a division bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Indrajeet Shukla said while staying the ADM’s August 9, 2024 order rejecting the conversion plea of Mohammad Ahashan alias Anil Pandit, who had converted from Islam to Sanatan Dharma before marrying a Hindu woman.

The bench observed that the ADM had “nothing to do with the criminal investigation matter” and criticised the repeated directions to police to submit fresh reports in light of an FIR lodged by the woman’s father. According to the court, this amounted to exercising powers beyond those contemplated under the Act.

Court was hearing a petition challenging the ADM’s order passed under Section 9 of the 2021 Act. The petitioner contended that he had voluntarily converted in 2022 after complying with the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the law.

During the hearing held in chambers owing to the sensitive nature of the dispute, the bench interacted separately with the petitioner and his wife, who appeared personally before the court. The wife stated that she had voluntarily married the petitioner according to Hindu customs despite opposition from her father and that the couple was living together happily. She also informed the court that she was seven months pregnant.

The petitioner told the bench that he had long been inclined towards Sanatan Dharma and had converted through rituals conducted at an Arya Samaj temple prior to the marriage.

The high court recorded that the petitioner had complied with the procedural requirements under the anti-illegal conversion law by submitting prior declaration to the district magistrate and that the priest conducting the conversion had also informed the authorities in advance.

The bench further noted that the first two police inquiry reports had found the conversion to be voluntary and without any coercion or inducement. One of the reports specifically concluded that the conversion had taken place “without any pressure/inducement”.

However, after the wife’s father lodged an FIR alleging offences under Sections 295A, 420, 468, 469, 471/120-B of the IPC [ corresponding to Sections 299, 318(4), 336(3), 336(4), 340(2)/61(2) of the BNS] and Sections 8(1), 8(5) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, subsequent police reports began referring to the criminal case and the charge sheet filed against the petitioner.

Court said the ADM wrongly went into issues surrounding the validity of the marriage instead of restricting the inquiry to whether the conversion itself was voluntary. The bench also observed that there was no material showing that the conversion had taken place under undue influence.

Rejecting the inference drawn from monetary transactions between the petitioner and his wife, court held that financial assistance between friends could not by itself establish coercion or inducement.

The bench also remarked that mere filing of a charge sheet does not amount to proof of guilt and held that even a prima facie adverse view solely based on the charge sheet would be erroneous.

The high court, therefore, directed the ADM to reconsider the matter afresh within three weeks while taking into account the earlier police reports and the court’s interaction with the couple.

Till then, the August 9, 2024 order has been kept in abeyance and the police have been directed not to interfere in the couple’s married life.

The matter will be next heard on May 27, 2026.

Case Title: Anil Pandit @ Mohammad Ahashan vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Order Date: May 5, 2026

Bench: Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Indrajeet Shukla