Allahabad HC Frees Two Sisters Held by Father After Conversion to Islam, Awards Rs 25 Lakh Compensation
Allahabad High Court declared the detention of two adult women by their father unlawful after they voluntarily converted to Islam, ordering Rs 25 lakh compensation jointly from the father and the State of Uttar Pradesh.
On 6 August 2026, Justice Sandeep Jain, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, allowed a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of two sisters — Ms. Anshu Bhatia @ Amina Anshu Bhatia and Ms. Diya Bhatia @ Zoya Diya Bhatia — who had been confined by their father, respondent No. 4 Anil Kumar Bhatia, after they separately converted to Islam. The court found the confinement to be wholly without authority of law and a direct infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India. Crucially, the court went beyond ordering release and directed the father and the State of Uttar Pradesh jointly to pay constitutional compensation of Rs 25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakh), holding the State equally accountable for permitting the illegal detention to continue under the cover of a pending criminal investigation.
How the Two Sisters Came Before the Court
The habeas corpus petition, numbered Writ Petition No. 1079 of 2026, was filed by Kunwar Sultan Ali and two others seeking the production and release of the two women. By an order dated 30 July 2026, the court directed the State to produce the corpus before it. Police Station Cyber Crime, Agra, complied: Ms. Reeta Yadav, Inspector, and Sri Manoj Kumar, Sub-Inspector, produced both women in court.
Ms. Anshu Bhatia stated that she is approximately 35 years of age, unmarried, and holds M.Sc. and M.Phil. degrees in Zoology along with a B.Ed., and has worked as a Lecturer. She told the court that she had voluntarily embraced Islam in 2020 as a matter of personal faith, conscience and the pursuit of inner peace. Ms. Diya Bhatia stated that she is about 20 years of age, has passed her Intermediate examinations, and has attained majority. She said she voluntarily embraced Islam in 2021 for reasons of personal faith and spiritual solace.
Both women categorically denied that force, fraud, coercion, undue influence, inducement, or allurement of any kind had played any part in their respective decisions to convert. Each stated that her father had strongly opposed the decision and had subjected her to physical restraint, intimidation and sustained mental harassment in an attempt to compel her to renounce Islam and return to Hinduism. They further stated that their passports, educational certificates, identity documents, bank passbooks, cheque books, and conversion-related documents remained in their father's custody.
The State's Opposition: Conspiracy, National Security and the UP Conversion Law
The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by learned Additional Advocate General Shri Manish Goyal assisted by Sri Pankaj Saxena, vigorously opposed the petition. The State's arguments ranged well beyond the immediate question of detention.
The State pointed out that Anil Kumar Bhatia had lodged Case Crime No. 228 of 2025 at Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Agra, alleging that both women had been subjected to forcible and deceitful conversion. The FIR was initially registered under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. On the basis of material gathered during investigation, the police subsequently incorporated Sections 61(2), 111(3), 111(4) and 152 of the BNS, 2023, along with Sections 3, 5(1) and 5(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
The UP Conversion Act, 2021, which came into force on 27 November 2020, establishes a statutory framework for regulating religious conversions and prescribes mandatory procedure that must be followed when a person changes religion. The State argued that the alleged conversions had not been effected in accordance with this procedure and that the validity of the conversion certificates could not therefore be recognised in these proceedings.
Going further, the Additional Advocate General contended that the conversions formed part of a larger and organised conspiracy with the potential to threaten the sovereignty, integrity and unity of the nation, and that the investigating agency had unearthed material indicating the involvement of foreign entities. It was argued that releasing the corpus at this stage could prejudice the ongoing investigation and allow the constitutional jurisdiction of the court to be used to defeat the criminal process. The State also urged the court to read Articles 21 and 25 alongside the Preamble's values of unity, integrity and fraternity, and submitted that those rights are not absolute.
The Petitioners' Response: Habeas Corpus Asks Only About Legality of Detention
Counsel for the petitioners, led by Mr. Ali Bin Saif, submitted that the sole question in a habeas corpus petition is whether the corpus are being unlawfully deprived of their personal liberty. The merits of the criminal investigation and the validity of the conversion were, according to the petitioners, entirely separate matters for a different forum.
Counsel argued that both women are majors, fully competent to make independent decisions about faith, residence and association. The freedom of conscience under Article 25 and personal liberty under Article 21 together protect their choice. The petitioners contended that the State's arguments about national sovereignty were wholly speculative, and that the pendency of a criminal investigation cannot authorise the continued detention of adult women who are not themselves accused of any offence. Both women had merely been shown as victims in Case Crime No. 228 of 2025.
The petitioners relied on Rajendra Bihari Lal & Another v. State of U.P. & Others, 2025 INSC 1249, and Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Others, (2018) 16 SCC 368, in support of the principle that constitutional courts must protect the autonomy of adult individuals in matters of faith, conscience, marriage and residence against illegal restraint.
The Court's Reasoning on Detention, Autonomy and the Scope of Habeas Corpus
Justice Sandeep Jain conducted independent interactions with each of the two women. He found their responses spontaneous, coherent and unequivocal. Nothing in those interactions indicated that either woman was acting under coercion, fear, inducement or undue influence.
The court set out the governing legal framework on habeas corpus by reference to Home Secretary (Prison) and Others v. H. Nilofer Nisha, (2020) 14 SCC 161, which confirmed that the writ is available both against State detention and private detention, and that it will only issue where detention is without authority of law. The court also drew on Sonni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas, (2018) 2 SCC 197, which held that once a person attains majority she is entitled to make her own choices and courts cannot assume the role of parens patriae against her expressed free will.
The court accepted that Article 25 guarantees the freedom of conscience, which necessarily encompasses the right of a competent adult to adopt, renounce or change her faith of her own free will. That choice, it held, is an essential facet of individual autonomy, dignity and personal liberty protected under both Article 25 and Article 21. “Neither the State nor the family can ordinarily dictate or interfere with such an intensely personal decision.”
On the State's central argument that the conversions formed part of a conspiracy against national security, Justice Jain declined to accept it. He observed that no material beyond broad assertions founded on the FIR and the pendency of investigation had been placed before the court to demonstrate that the exercise of religious choice by two adult women, by itself, posed any threat to the sovereignty, integrity or security of the country. Mere apprehensions, however seriously expressed, cannot substitute for legally admissible material when adjudicating upon the fundamental rights of citizens.
The court was equally direct on the UP Conversion Act, 2021. It held that the vires of the Act had not been challenged in these proceedings, and the legality or validity of the conversion was not the subject matter of this habeas corpus petition. Any question of compliance or non-compliance with the Act falls to be decided by the competent authority or forum. Even assuming the conversion had not followed the statutory procedure, that assumption could not by itself justify keeping two adult women confined against their will. The legality of the conversion and the legality of the detention are, the court stated, two distinct and independent issues.
On the State's submission that releasing the corpus might prejudice the criminal investigation, the court held that the pendency of investigation cannot furnish a lawful justification for curtailing the liberty of adult citizens who are not subject to any judicial or lawful order of detention. The investigation in Case Crime No. 228 of 2025 was to proceed strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in the habeas corpus judgment.
Having interacted with both women, the court concluded that they had been unwillingly confined in their parental home and prevented from exercising their independent choice solely because they had embraced a different religion. That confinement could not receive the imprimatur of law and was manifestly violative of their constitutional rights.
Constitutional Compensation: The Court Invokes Rudul Sah and Nilabati Behera
Justice Jain held that the case disclosed an exceptionally grave violation of constitutional rights. The two women had been deprived of their liberty for a prolonged period commencing from 2021, solely because of their exercise of constitutionally protected freedom of conscience. The court found the State equally culpable: instead of securing the release of the corpus from unlawful confinement, the State permitted the detention to continue under the ostensible cover of the criminal proceedings. Its acts of omission and commission amounted to tacit support for the continued deprivation of fundamental rights.
Drawing on the Supreme Court's decisions in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar & Another, (1983) 4 SCC 141, and Nilabati Behera (Smt.) Alias Lalita Behera v. State of Orissa and Others, (1993) 2 SCC 746, the court reaffirmed the constitutional power of the High Court under Article 226 to award monetary compensation for established infringement of rights under Article 21. Such compensation is not punitive or ex gratia; it is a public law remedy designed to redress the violation, uphold the Constitution's majesty and enforce accountability.
The court held Anil Kumar Bhatia and the State of Uttar Pradesh jointly and severally liable. The confinement had inflicted, in the court's assessment, profound mental anguish, emotional trauma, psychological suffering, social isolation and an irreparable assault on the dignity, autonomy and freedom of conscience of both women.
Order
The writ petition was allowed on 6 August 2026 with the following directions:
Ms. Diya Bhatia @ Zoya Diya Bhatia and Ms. Anshu Bhatia @ Amina Anshu Bhatia were declared free to reside at any place and with any person of their choice, without interference from respondent No. 4 or any other person or the State and its functionaries.
Respondent No. 4 Anil Kumar Bhatia and the State of Uttar Pradesh were held jointly and severally liable for the unlawful deprivation of the fundamental rights of the corpus. They were directed to jointly pay compensation of Rs 25,00,000 (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakh), to be equally divided between the two women, within eight weeks of the judgment. After satisfying the award, the State Government was permitted to recover 50% of the compensation from respondent No. 4 and the remaining 50% from any delinquent public servant whose acts or omissions contributed to the unconstitutional deprivation, strictly in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity of hearing.
Respondent No. 4 was restrained from directly or indirectly interfering with the personal liberty, movement, residence, profession or religious choices of either woman.
The State authorities, in particular respondent Nos. 2 and 3, were directed to ensure no interference in the peaceful life and liberty of the corpus and, where required, to provide adequate protection in accordance with law.
Respondent No. 4 was further directed to return, within seven days, all original documents in his custody: passports, educational certificates, identity documents, bank passbooks, cheque books, conversion-related documents and all other personal belongings of the corpus. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to ensure compliance if any difficulty arose.
The court expressly clarified that no observation in the judgment should be read as an expression on the merits of the criminal proceedings in Case Crime No. 228 of 2025 or on the legality or validity of the alleged religious conversions, which were to be examined independently by the competent court or authority, uninfluenced by this judgment.