Show summary Hide summary
The Allahabad High Court has declined to set aside an FIR accusing two Class XII students of forcing a classmate to don a veil and convert to Islam, saying the evidence collected so far warrants a full investigation. The decision, delivered by a division bench on Thursday, underscores the court’s concern about what it called a troubling pattern of proselytising among young people.
Bench says probe must continue
A division bench of Justices JJ Munir and Tarun Saxena rejected a writ petition filed by the accused, named in court papers as Aleena and Shabiya. The judges noted that the material seized during the preliminary inquiry suggests prima facie grounds for prosecution and cannot be brushed aside at this stage.
Minor and two friends raped and forced to convert and marry, mother alleges
AI risk lies in misuse, not machines: Midival Punditz urge artists to protect cultural identity
The court emphasized that the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 was intended to stop coercive or deceptive conversion practices, and prosecutions based on tangible investigative material should not be prematurely quashed. It added that, if such behaviour is occurring among adolescents, it is particularly worrying because young people should be focused on education and social contribution.
Allegations and what investigators recorded
The FIR was lodged by the brother of a Class XII student from Moradabad. He alleged that five classmates at a private tuition centre, including the two petitioners, compelled his sister to wear a veil and pressured her to embrace Islam.
In statements recorded under sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), the victim described a December incident in which the accused produced a veil and made her wear it. She also told investigators that classmates brought non-vegetarian food and urged her to consume the gravy when she refused meat. The statements say she was repeatedly told the other students’ religion was superior and that wearing a veil would grant her freedom of movement.
The case diary, the court noted, contains CCTV footage that appears to show the victim being made to wear the veil, as well as other material gathered during the probe.
Defence arguments and court response
Counsel for one of the accused argued the FIR was vague and a retaliatory measure after one of the five had complained that the informant had been stalking and harassing her. The lawyer also stressed that the petitioner is an 18‑year‑old preparing for Class XII exams and that the criminal case hampered her studies.
The bench acknowledged these submissions but held that whether the students’ conduct amounts to allurement or undue influence under the 2021 Act is a matter for the ongoing investigation and possibly trial, not for disposal at the quashing stage.
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Location | Prayagraj/Allahabad High Court; incident reported in Moradabad |
| Accused | Aleena and Shabiya (both Class XII students) and three other classmates |
| Victim | Female Class XII student; complaint lodged by her brother |
| Allegations | Forced to wear a veil (burqa) and pressured to convert; non‑veg food coercion |
| Evidence cited | CCTV footage and statements recorded under sections 180 & 183 of BNSS |
| Legal framework | UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 |
| Judicial status | High Court refused to quash FIR; investigation to continue |
Why this matters now: cases invoking the 2021 anti‑conversion law carry immediate social and legal consequences, especially where minors and school settings are involved. The bench’s ruling signals that courts will allow evidentiary probes to proceed before intervening in prosecutions under the statute.
Legal analysts say the path forward will depend on the investigation and how the prosecution frames elements such as inducement, coercion or undue influence. If the evidence proves insufficient, criminal charges could be dropped later; if investigators corroborate the victim’s account, the case could lead to formal charges and trial.
For the accused students, the litigation already affects schooling and wellbeing; for the broader public, the matter raises questions about peer pressure, religious freedom and the role of the criminal law in resolving disputes that arise among adolescents in educational settings.
