Show summary Hide summary
The Allahabad High Court this week ordered the release of a 31-year-old man from Shamli, ruling that an adult’s choice of faith and partner cannot be curbed by his family or by unlawful confinement. The decision foregrounds constitutional protections and raises questions about how anti-conversion complaints and police actions are handled in cases involving adult converts.
Court action and what led to it
The case reached the high court through a habeas corpus petition filed by a friend of the man, identified as Sultan, who alleged that the son had been kept under illegal restraint by his father. Justice Sandeep Jain described the allegations as serious and, after directing authorities to produce the man in court, was told he had been brought before the bench by a local sub‑inspector.
Puja bookings from abroad: what to verify about sankalp, gotra and priest credentials
Sadhus: inside their growing political and cultural influence
In sworn statements to the court, the man—identified in filings as Ayush Malik—said he converted to Islam in 2014 of his own volition, holds a BPharma degree and has faced threats and house arrest since early June. He told judges he intends to marry Chandni Qureshi and that no coercion influenced his conversion or marital choice.
Charges, arrests and earlier proceedings
After the family dispute surfaced, the father lodged a complaint at the Kotwali police station on June 6 invoking the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, along with provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Police arrested the woman Malik wishes to marry and her father; both were later granted bail by the District and Sessions Judge, Shamli, on July 24.
The father disputed his son’s account before the high court, saying the younger man had been influenced and that the conversion and proposed marriage were against his interests. The court, however, found the son’s testimony credible and said there was no material to disbelieve him.
Legal grounds and the court’s directive
Invoking constitutional protections, the bench relied on Article 25 (freedom of conscience and religion) and Article 21 (life and personal liberty) to conclude that there was no lawful basis to continue any restraint on the man. The court disposed of the habeas corpus petition and clarified that he is free to choose his residence, practise his religion and decide on marriage in accordance with law.
- Who: 31‑year‑old man from Shamli (petitioner brought by a friend).
- Allegation: unlawful confinement by his father after converting to Islam and intending to marry a Muslim woman.
- Police role: sub‑inspector produced the man in court after the high court’s September direction.
- Prior FIR: filed June 6 under the UP anti‑conversion law and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; two accused received bail on July 24.
- Court outcome: restraint lifted; individual free to live, worship and marry as an adult under the Constitution.
The ruling reiterates that adult autonomy in matters of faith and marriage is protected under the Constitution and cannot be set aside simply because family members object. It also highlights tensions that arise when personal liberty claims intersect with state and police responses to allegations under anti‑conversion statutes.
While the habeas corpus petition has been disposed of, the criminal complaint that prompted the arrests remains a separate matter in the criminal justice system. The case may prompt closer judicial scrutiny of how complaints about religious conversion are investigated when they concern adults who assert voluntary change of faith.
